Initial Resource Intake vs Long Term Resource expenditures.

[godsvoice]

posted on February 25th, 2012, 5:51 am

Last edited by godsvoice on February 25th, 2012, 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

so, after a recent post, I realized how often in some of my posts I use this phrase "Initial Resource Intake", but I'm not sure if I've ever really framed or explained the full thought behind it as I see it.

I was considering putting this in the 'hidden parts of FO' thread, but I don't think its really 'hidden'. I'm sure many players already use it, but I just don't think I've seen a lot of explicit talk about it. So I thought what the hell... So here's my short FO/economic/philosophy blurb:

After talking in thread about getting lots of moons going really quickly against AI, the reasoning for why it is so important is for costs. Consider what you are building at the beginning of the game (you still have to build EVERYTHING!) and what you build later in the game (well just ships, and specials, and the stations that offer them).

Just looking at di costs, just go through in your head everything you will build. Every mining station, roughly 350 (x4-6 at least). Every small yard 800ish (x2 say). All research stations 600ish say (x3 or so). All turrets, a few hundred (say 2+ + who knows). And now, ships and specials, and these ships and specials will cost you in the beginning say, 350ish, then as game goes on, more advanced ships and specials add up. So 500ish, 650ish, 800ish, 1000ish. And so on. Miners 150ish (x a lot)

In the beginning NOTHING is built. Initial resource intake is important for those things that have a one time build cost. You pay for a research station once. Yards once. Specials once. Therefore, in the beginning you NEED resources for every aspect of your game. Later in the game, those one time expenditures quickly go away. You pay for ships, not the stations, and after special is researched, you don't pay for it again. But you benefit from it forever. Same with having moons and miners.

If in the beginning of the game you get 4 - 5 full expansions, the cost on you for those one time cost expenditures is quickly recuperated. Then pure profit. The resources you collect later in game pay back for all your investments made tenfold.

Leading into long term expenditures. You always pay for ships. You don't at one point look at the game and say, oh, I don't need any more ships now, I've got what I need. (And if you do, well you've probably won) If the game is still going on, you are likely still building ships.

So I just wanted to frame a thread that points it out (maybe more specifically for new players, although even for them it probably isn't new... i.e. many many games function the same way where you want to increase whatever your economic source of income is quickly). But for FO, its moons. So one way I think its blatantly talked about all the time, is expansions. Expansions I suppose could be said to be initial resource intake being increased. But well, I suppose I think of expansions as always being needed. (both for map control reasons, and strategy, not just economic reasons) But after the game goes on, you will find that if you've expanded say 4-5 times like the beginning, your ship production can be managed with just 3 moons. And so you get surpluses, and so you upgrade to bigger ships. The idea of expanding isn't just that you expand and therefore occupy more space giving you strategic advantages for yard location and attack purposes. So thats the blurb.

-- - - - --- - -  - --  - -- - - -  - - - - - - -  - - -  -

You also get a real life significance understanding from this. I imagine many of us are probably young adults, but for any teens, this is really good to learn early in life. One thing you can tell your parents that video games are teaching you is Economics! (or crazy forum members who write exceedingly long threads, that you reluctantly read )

For example: You will eventually probably buy something like a car, or a house, or a computer. This is something you pay for once, downpayment type thing etc. Yes, the payments are made over years simply for ease, but it doesn't help you because of interest. A car costs you 20k once, and the faster you pay it off the better. You save on interest and you get the car. But then you have maintenance. So that car that you pay for, like the actual car itself costs you 20k, and interest depending on the repayment timeframe. But maintenance and upkeep is your long term expenditures. Things like oil change, transmission, gas, etc etc. I mean, for house or computer, it could be upgrades, repairs, new gadgets etc.

In finances, you don't always want all your costs to be low. I.e. minimum payments, bad way to go! Things with a one time cost pay off right away.

But then you have things like food, gas, and clothing, which will ALWAYS cost you money. Those things you want to keep low. Buy fewer clothes, affordable food (don't eat out twice a week) etc.

Our lives, I suspect, would be much easier if we had a system that was geared in this way. The world is setup where you go into the work force and start out lower pay and work your way up. Capitalism, growth. I want things to be better and better every year. I want my income to grow 5% every year (or more!), and this is good. You are successful say, if you were working part time while at university making minimum, went to university, then 20 years down the road are now earning 6 figures at your good job. well thats right...

WRONG!

It's insane. Imagine this instead: In the years of your 20s your society and culture provided you everything you needed to live. You made 6 figures at 24. Affordable transportation and housing was provided... in that you can afford it. not free necessarily (not sure if single homes are in fact best, but whatever not important for this thought). After every year, you got a pay decrease . By your thirties, you aren't making much at all. probably 60% less. Bad?

Well, I'd suggest... no. It's sustainable. You are paid lots, you buy a house, and such. You don't go forever in debt. You don't live your whole youth in debt. And by the time you are in your thirties forties and fifties and making less... well so what. You need less. All you pay for now is gas, food, clothing. What, you can't afford to put your kids through college? No you can't. but, oh wait, yeah. That's taken care of. They're being paid 6 figures remember?

I understand this is sort of random, and I'm not trying to turn the thread into some lecture, or come off awkward. Yes there are potential objections, (none of which I think are reasonable). The only shift in thought I think this leads to, is one, you don't grow up to be rich *you won't need to because the system is working in your favour. And, as you make less and less, you actually stay fairly on par (like, your costs in life shouldn't being going up anyways - they start high in the beginning like in almost all things, then they should go down or some method of renewal). No millionaires. etc. But in any case.  Hopefully food for thought. The only big shift here is the actual change. Shifting public image and institutions to recognize benefits that go against the grain. I love it. Who likes conventionality... really.

long thread 

posted on February 25th, 2012, 6:58 am

1. You have a good point about the resource curve, but it's also the defining difference between AI games and multiplayer.  A human can see you expanding early without the firepower to defend it, and he wills send ships to snipe all your miners as they head to your expand.  The AI cannot, so of course it makes sense to have an orgy of land-grabbing at the beginning of the game.

Also in multiplayer there is the factor of raiding susceptibility.  It is usually better to have 3 moon pairs than 4 just because the enemy can raid you and it will divide your brainpower too much to maintain them, compared to a relatively small boost in production after you factor in rising supply costs.



2. With regards to the economic theory, I don't want to be cruel but that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard and this is why:

Older workers are more valuable, they have more experience and make fewer mistakes.  Businesses are willing to pay them more money than they will pay a young person.  They will NEVER pay a young person more on their own, the only way it will happen is if the government forces them.

Now, suppose the government forces them to pay older people less money.  EVERY business will want to hire older people all the time, meaning no young person will ever get a job unless all the oldies are hired.  But many older people have been working at a single company most of their lives, and have loyalty to that company.  So now 1. new businesses cannot compete with existing ones, and die out completely until there is no market competition and 2. young people can't get jobs so they become inexperienced across the board, this age-line of unskilled labor creeps higher and higher and each generation is less skilled than the last.

Finally, the government could force companies to both pay older people less money AND hire young people.  Basically they would be forcing people to make bad business decisions.  Such a system would be HIGHLY vulnerable to corruption as the government plays favorites and basically decides which businesses live or die.  Within a single generation your entire economic structure is devastated and the country literally reverts to a pre-industrial state.

Not to mention that in a free-border system, all the skilled laborers would just up and go to other countries.  Communism was already tried in the USSR and it failed miserably, millions starved to death because they couldn't even get people to plant crops properly.  When they went to war with Germany, some 5 million Russian troops simply surrendered because they hated their system so much.  I've been studying it for a college class this past few weeks and it's been very enlightening.

[godsvoice]

posted on February 25th, 2012, 2:39 pm

Last edited by godsvoice on February 25th, 2012, 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In response to the economic theory don't worry about it. stating objections is fine, sometimes the ridiculous needs to be considered. (as if the current system isn't )

I think stating a two paragraph version of a theory can't cover everything.

You have a valid point about experience, but I don't think it necessarily ruins the theory. Adjustments would just be made for that particular area in future theories. This isn't communism.

Unfortunately, responses would just be so much quicker and effective in conversation than online, but:

First I don't find the objections convincing because:

We are basing the failure on a government that can't operate, and how it picks and chooses, or forces companies to do this or that. This system, if accomplished, would be much more integrated. Roles would be defined, and governments and companies would both be in it for societies benefit (which now they are not, companies are separate entities, individuals in themselves that have a mandate of growth for investors, so they are separate from the societies they are in, despite offering employment and so on). In my view the first gut reaction/objection is highly superficial. Right now, the divide is just to great. The actual truth now, is that there is too much corruption because companies are the money makers, and can just buy government decisions. If you had a society where people grew up knowing things are provided, you would cut out a lot of the objectionable things you are hinting at.

i.e. old vs young workers. The point is exactly that companies no longer think of bottom line profit. But actually, simply that they secure that experienced old aged worker at a young age. I don't mind a system that says, young people, pick the company you like, some pay you lots, some pay you loads of a lot, and you stay with that job for a while, if you leave, you return some of the money the company paid you. The company is already making the long term investment from the start, paying for the experienced worker that will come. As for always hiring old people because its cheaper... no, the system just wouldn't work that way. But while the young person gets good pay to start, they know as it goes forward there will be drops, but it hardly matters, they were paid so much to begin with.

The problem is looking at it as though its a competition, or aspects of a culture are influencing or forcing other parts.

It just wreaks of ineffective integration for society. By the way, social contract theory has never been perfected regardless. So arguing for the current system that is imperfect, over this new one, I find suspect.

Um, yeah as for experience... you are getting experience. And after a generation this would still work, because you have 30 50 year old people at a company who just hired a young person for a big investment (and remember back when they were first hired and paid well). So every experienced aged person there sees this is the latest investment, and they TRAIN them very well very quickly. And why not, they're young, eager, willing to learn and want to do good.
So lots of problems nowadays about bad training would easily go away when it is such big a deal investment wise. No learning the ropes on your own, you get help.

Why would skill labourers leave. Hey, skilled labourer, I will give you 140 000 for this right now. Sign a contract for 9 years, and yes there will be a down grade in your pay, but right at the start you'll be earning lots enough o get you through your early life, and easily save you lots for old age. Or, do you want to leave, go somewhere that hires you at a decent rate, say 70 000 and you slowly make more and more. Why would they leave?

I dunno, I think it was the brevity of my post. Not that it is short, but with respects to a full economic theory, however long any of my posts are, its simply not enough. I think there is actually plenty of potential in the idea.

Society just has to change. And it isn't like the change is without sufficient reason. Europe had a go with capitalism, the whole world did, either it was flawed to begin with, or we really messed it up.

um actually gotta go, if i didn't respond well enough. i'll clarify better later. But i read the objections... I don't thin they are that serious.

Edit: Oh, and yes, focusing on initial resource intake is definitely easier to execute in an AI game than human game for sure. I just wanted to post to demonstrate that there was that curve. Maybe it can be somewhat modified in some way for online gameplay, maybe not. I.e. raiding and such. I realize there is that other side to it. But I think even in online game play, keeping in mind that this is part of it. Like I said, even if you go 4 moon pairs and the enemy can raid you, even if you can't fully defend, it doesn't matter. As long as you come out better than even, which means a di moon needs around two-three full runs to break even, and anything after that is bonus resources. Also, even if the human is able to raid any of your four expansions, because they can't all be defended, they can't break you, or attack meaningfully enough to harm you. Or maybe it is, I dunno. But felt the post would be relevant in some way to consider overall.

posted on February 25th, 2012, 4:20 pm

You find my arguing in favor of the current system suspicious...because your theory isn't finished yet.  Well the same goes for Capitalism, a full Capitalist society has never existed either but the mostly-Capitalist setup we have today has been more successful than anything else.  The reason parts of Europe are failing is because they AREN'T capitalist.  It is the government handouts and Socialist workings of Greece that are killing it, not Capitalism.

What you are talking about is nothing short of a caste system.  Yes the skilled laborers would all leave when they find they can get paid more money for doing the same job somewhere else.  And as I said in my previous post companies CAN'T AFFORD to hire young people as an investment knowing they'll get better.  The majority of new companies die in under 1 year, they can't wait 20-30 years for such a process.  It isn't greedy, it's the smart decision to hire the best workers for the best price.  The only way they will ever do otherwise is if somebody MAKES them do it, and then you have a massive government bureaucracy to sustain the system, thousands of people who need to be paid just to organize the workers, an expense that Capitalism simply doesn't have to pay.

There is absolutely no reason for a worker to remain loyal to a company that continually lowers his pay.  What's to stop him from going to another job and getting more money?  Is it based on age?  Then you have hundreds of thousands of workers getting fake ID's that say they're younger than they really are, and the government has to run a massive counter-campaign to control peoples' documentation, AS HAPPENED IN THE USSR.

The problems with your theory are myriad and blatant, from the moral details to the macro-scale economic feasibility.  The only way a person could believe that that system is better than Capitalism is if they have never studied actual economic systems and know nothing of the history of the Soviet Union.

This is a short list of the problems that are known to arise from social contract systems, proven not by theory but by real-life events.  Can you answer just one of them?

-People don't feel motivated to work harder.
-People don't feel motivated to get a better education.
-A massive administration requires significant money to maintain.
-An administration in charge of physical assets can become corrupt and susceptible to all sorts of bribes.
-New businesses become impossible to start, leading to monopolies.
-No motivation to invent things, as there is no reward for a large amount of work.
-Companies are encouraged to make hiring decisions that are likely to result in the failure of the company.  Good decisions are discouraged by the State.

On a fundamental level, you do not understand what "Corruption" means.  Corruption means that wealth is being taken from people who create it and given to people who do not deserve it.  By definition, a big corporation that tries to make money is NOT corrupt, that's just a silly idea.  By definition, Capitalism is not corrupt because the money people get matches the work they do.  Sure some people get better opportunities than others, but that's not corruption.  That's life on earth.

Social contract systems are Corrupt, from the very core of their idea.  You are proposing that we take wealth from the people who add the most value to society and give it to other people who do not add as much value, that is a corrupt idea.  And you can't just say that "Society will be okay with it" because society is made up of individuals who make up their own minds.  The USSR raised an entire generation, millions of young people who believed that if they worked hard inside the system, it would benefit the entire country but not themselves personally.  When the Iron Curtain came down and the first McDonalds was built in Russia, people would wait in line 2 hours every day to buy a hamburger because it was cheaper, higher quality, and the line was shorter than they were used to under Communism.  To say that "social contracts have never been tried properly" is an insult to those millions that you have never met and probably never heard of properly.

posted on February 25th, 2012, 5:21 pm

Sigh.  this is why conversations are better, they're just so much faster, and objections are so much easier to deal with.

I don't have a formal education in economics, no, but that isn't always necessary. (I'm also not 100% clueless on it, just not to the level you might more readily accept) I do, however, have a very good understanding of social contract theory. I do have some understanding of Russia, but no, probably not to the extent you are looking for. I also don't believe you can base an entire argument on Russia. Russia is massive in size. The government system is not what I'm talking about, and the history of Russia is not equivalent to history of the world, or other lessons from history. Because I'm also pretty well versed on a wide range of historical times.

We simply disagree on some other matters. Which is fine. Some might be with some reason.

Why are you so convinced skilled labourers would leave once the years of low pay come about? If so, maybe they just need to be taught different ideals. But I don't want the conversation to go everywhere.

Majority of new companies... fine. But not developed ones. New companies would have an alternate role. The system can work where there are established companies that are integrated with the system, and new developing companies that are more traditionally capitalist trying to make it work.

There is a reason for a worker to remain with a company that pays him 230% of what he should be paid anywhere to start compared with anywhere else, and then lowers it. Of course there is. It is greed if I make 50k at a 25k job, then decide to leave because my pay got lowered to maybe 20k after x years. When for a decade I was able to afford a house, a car, raise a family when I needed the money, then settle into life at a lower pay when my expenses go down because the company paid me enough to everything. Do you not see this? Think of sports players. They get paid millions. yes, they came from lower leagues, had more or less proven themselves in their potential. Not their actual experience. They are given contracts that last x number of years. But they are hired young, and are seen to have potential that will lead to pay off down the road.

People are not motivated: I would be motivated by any job that pays me an initial 200% salary. Even knowing that goes down. I simply do not care. I will spend the money wisely, knowing in advance it will go down. I'll save the money anyways. Instead of buying anything that costs serious cash (thousands), with interest that lasts for 10 - 30 years. The 50K I might lose 15 years down the road, I will save on the interest I won't have to pay when I can pay a house off in full no problem in 2-4 years.

People don't feel motivated to get better education: Because there is no guarantee it will pay off. Education puts you in debt thousands of dollars. Then you are screwed. What if that education was paid for, or had anything more suitable to help you, i.e. a society that helps students who get higher education. No system accounts for that. Not even Capitalism. In fact, it is a huge problem for capitalism. A big part of capitalism is to say: work hard and you will make money down the road. True, it might never have fully come about where the world is 100% capitalist, but that is with reason. Capitalism doesn't say universities will give you a job anyways. Now there are huge debates everywhere about worth of universities.

The others have responses, they are just to long winded for even me to go into, at least right now.

As for the corruption idea... I'm surprised to read your post. From my point of view, it seems like you have no understanding of what corruption is at all. Corruption is not redistribution of money. By any means. Period.

I can invent something on a whim. You think that entitles me to millions of dollars? I create a fuel source that solves all our problems. That does not translate to me becoming the richest man on earth. Well it does in capitalism. But by no means should it. The only reason someone gets rich in a capitalist society is because of consumers. Consumers pay for things. An inventor depends on potential consumers. He came up with the idea sure, and he should get his fair share, but no man should be a bill gates. Capitalism can't make us all millionaires. You realize this right? We have poverty galore in so many undeveloped nations. We can say, oh, capitalism in china is now letting people who used to make 2 dollars a day, now make 3 dollars a day. WOW! Go capitalism! You just increased their wealth by 33%. Are you joking? They've living in poverty. Capitalism needs that cheap source of labour. But the whole point is to redistribute money. Rich should be taxed, and that money should go to the less fortunate. People don't get rich on their own. There is no self made man alive. Self made men depend on their environment, society, who provide them with what they have.

"corruption means wealth is being taken by those who create it, and given to those who don't deserve it". Wrong. On just so many levels. I mean, on so many many many levels.

Who is anyone to say who is deserving of wealth and who is not. What people in canada are entitled to 'wealth', because they work 40 hours a week, while people in china are not entitled to wealth despite them working over 100 hours a week??? Those workers are creating our wealth, which we buy cheap. Who is creating wealth? A company that exploits? Some guy who says, hey look, I have field full of crops. I'm creating wealth. So give me millions of dollars, and I'll give each of you a little bit of food. But because I made a crop, now I deserve my wealth, and you can just go to hell?

A new company that fails, because it can't get cheap labour though, thats cause for concern.

Erg... I'm not saying I've perfected a system yet. But I'm hardly as bad off as you are implying.

Capitalism is growth. But why? My life is not going to grow like this: (pic of graph that grows exponentially).

My life is a belle curve. it start of low as a baby, I don't consume much. Then it peaks in my 20s 30s. Then it goes down. The only thing that might go up, is health costs. But considerably less if I was well taken care of early in life.

After I get my house at 30 or whatever, while some rich people might buy 10 more houses... most of us won't. We also won't buy a dozen cars for the hell of it.

- - - - - -  - -  - -

So you really see nothing of what I'm saying as being valid? It's all just Communist Russia didn't work silly!/and social theory is bad? Which I agree, mostly because of clauses in social contract theory that deal with property *cough* Locke.

It's just.. theres a bit more too it than that.

Anyways.

posted on February 25th, 2012, 5:52 pm

Social contract systems are Corrupt, from the very core of their idea.  You are proposing that we take wealth from the people who add the most value to society and give it to other people who do not add as much value, that is a corrupt idea.

And who defines that value, what exactly is that value and how do you compare it? An artist will never generate an outcome, that will be en par with a engineer, but his music might inspirate the engineer. A woman who cares about children in a kindergarden will never generate an output like a scientist, but she may be the one who teached one of those boys how important it is to ask question and never stop to wonder.

What you try is to put a fixed scale on things that fall under the law of causality. Or to put it in simple words: Your approach is'nt even near the mechanisms that work in reality. You can try to put abstract models over it, or simplified assumptions, but it will never fit the real world.

I dont know how things are going in the U.S., but here in germany a lot of people begin to throw away the idea of capitalism because it was proven wrong and many people have lost faith in the idea, that you can be everything if you only try hard enough. Fact is: You cant, even if you try. There are stones put in your way you can never overcome, because at a certain point you are always dependent on something. Be it education, be it money, be it your boss or be it the law. There is also the lobbyism, which tries to destroy everything that is in their way. Even if those things are live-saving medicaments, energy-saving technologies, inventions, new approaches on fighting diseases and so on. This system is build on dependencies and the terror to fullfill them. Dont get me wrong, I dont like the idea of paying money for something, that will never bring fruits. And thats why I oppose our own gouvernement.

[godsvoice]

posted on February 25th, 2012, 6:15 pm

Last edited by godsvoice on February 25th, 2012, 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A very nice post.

EDIT: In canada the recovery and dip in economy haven't been as bad as in some parts of the world. In my understanding, largely because of government regulations that are in place for our 5 major banks.

However, with our neighbours south of the border, our economy is so much intertwined with U.S. that we really couldn't escape it. But in general, our economists tell us we didn't take the full brunt of it. (we weren't involved at all with the housing market crash bonds) But if things go sour in Europe, everyone feels it. Even us. Global economy and all.

posted on February 26th, 2012, 4:29 pm

I have read through your posts, it took a while but now I can respond intelligently.

There is one principle that you are missing, that I want to explain is the basis of my reasoning, and it is this:

If the people of a country are good and moral, hard-working and not overly greedy, ANY system of government and economy will work perfectly.  Morality is at the base of economic success.

Now, this is not the case.  We are comparing economic systems in a fallen world, where you can't 100% count on anybody to do the right thing.  In light of this, every argument that uses the words "because they know it's fair" or another moral argument cannot be used to support your contract system against Capitalism, because Capitalism would gain an equally powerful boost from having people with that level of morality.

What we are discussing is not a way for nice people to have good lives.  We are discussing the best way to mitigate evil, so that bad people cannot hurt good people.  In this line of thinking, it is meaningless to say that "people will be willing to work for decreasing pay because they're taken care of."  You have to show what the system will do for the people who inevitably are NOT willing to do this and switch jobs continually.  How do you stop the evil?

As I said earlier, circumstances can change the amount of money that people get for their work, and that's 100% unavoidable.  No economic system could ever change that, there's just WAY too many random variables.  But when I talk about how much value a person adds to society, I'm not using some abstract scale in my head.  It's easy to figure out: If a man invents a device that saves millions of people time and money, he has added a great deal to society and should be rewarded.

"corruption means wealth is being taken by those who create it, and given to those who don't deserve it". Wrong. On just so many levels. I mean, on so many many many levels.

Who is anyone to say who is deserving of wealth and who is not.

In a system that will never be perfectly fair, I want to try giving the wealth to the people who work the hardest.  You want to try giving it to young people whether they deserve it or not.  You're a lot closer to "playing god" with peoples' money than I am.

I appreciate that it would take a lot of space to answer all of my points, but there is one I want you guys to explain to me.  If you don't consider "Corruption" in an economic system to mean that wealth is being moved unfairly, what DO you consider it to be?  What's your definition for a Corrupt economy?  You can't just say that mine is stupid if you don't state one of your own, that's cheating.

[godsvoice]

posted on February 26th, 2012, 5:43 pm

Last edited by godsvoice on February 26th, 2012, 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Indeed.

Morality is at the base of economic success. But you barely even notice that in a capitalist society. What is good business ethics? There are none. Good business ethics in a system of growth leads to growth at any cost. We are turning to "going green" or "environmentally friendly" ways of development, so that suggests some increased level of morality, yes? Morality now, is more than saying treat your workers fairly, it is also becoming, treat the environment and animals fairly too. In some cases, products with "green" are meaningless, because companies can just put that on their products, and with no government regulations to manage them who's to say whether that green product on the shelf is truly green, or a company is just going after the green demographic of consumers and lying straight to their face.

Another problem though, is I'm not so sure if any government would work perfectly even with good morals and hard-working individuals. Economic success, while certainly reflecting the morals of a society, is also a balancing act, which is an extension of our morals. An economy must be balanced with the environment and its population. This system of capitalism is based on oil. In abstract, it depends on cheap transportation. Where we have industrial growth, that is  passed on to consumers for profit. But that profit is largely because the transportation of products is done dirt cheap. But now, in our focus for growth, peak oil is becoming a concern. So even if we had good hard working citizens, our morals would not have gone far enough. The morals of a successful economy have to be balanced with environment too. Now, yes, it could be that capitalism fines a wholly renewable source of energy, and then the environment is saved, hopefully, (we are somewhat dependant on a healthy world). However, even if that problem with capitalism of our current system were resolved, we would still have the problem of global poverty, starvation and so on. Capitalism also requires cheap labour, not just cheap transportation. It is imaginable where we have a great group of moral individuals, but if the morals do not extend to things ilke the environment, they could conduct activities that lead to failure, is all I'm saying here. Morals need to go beyond person to person acts.

As for evil, simply put, evil does not exist... I'm currently writing a book about it, but I don't want to spoil any secrets.

I can still answer the last part without going into it. So some people won't be able to work in this system, and will inevitably change jobs, variables are plentiful. First, we have to decide what we mean by people who are NOT willing... like right now, if someone were not willing to live by our current system, what does that mean? Our current system means you either get a job (whether high or low income), or live in poverty on the streets, or on welfare if you qualify. People who are not willing probably become criminals. So, can I say that I can stop criminal acts? Well, I mean, this is another big can of worms that is long winded. But I will address some concerns.

First, it depends on how wide spread my system can be implemented. If only Canada does this, than I have to worry about criminal enterprises from outside my country influencing the inside parts. People could see, hey some guys want to smuggle this into canada will give me a huge wad of cash and all I have to do is let them use my house. etc etc. So yes, in a perfect world, we get a global economy working the same way. Which, I would say, is fair. Communism was only ever supposed to work if everyone agreed to it. This is not communism, but all economic theories generally excel when it is a global affair. However, when the globe is split between comm and cap, its just a divide. But if we were to pick one system that worked, and implement it everyone, I'm not even sure capitalism could work. Eventually, if we did grow everyones wealth, we should all become millionaires at some point, right? Wouldn't that be the dream of capitalism, everyone, look we're all millionaires. Which means no more minimum wage. Heck why do people even work if they're so rich now? But if the whole world is rich, where do we get factory workers, unless we get robot workers. I'm just saying, taken to extreme, capitalism needs certain parts of the world to be... underprivileged. Does it really want everyone to be successful? No. It just says, we provide a system where everyone has the chance to be wealthy, even if just through lottery, but facts are, most won't. 

There is also criminal acts that originate from within. The parts from within can in large be reduced, if the system is working in favour of the population. A large part of criminal acts for our region is gangs, normally youth who have no avenues in society. They turn to crime, because they have very little choice. People don't generally to crime in the middle of life for no reason, it comes about from a conditions that stem from very early in life. Or sudden shifts that leave them no choice.

Can any system solve crime, or those who decide not to follow the accepted norms? There might always be deviants, but I'm pretty sure I could reduce it if we created a system that was incredibly focussed on servicing the young well, so they get into the system effectively. No this is not agism. I'm not looking to say, oh at age 35, well now the system doesn't care about you... etc etc. I'm saying effective forms of government realize children and young adults are the future, and should meet the needs of their future population. But everyone will be considered.

Erg, k. Younger people whether they deserve it or not. Well again, that's just it. I think all members of a society deserve something. But yeah, start with the young, and make them well off, or make it that they know they will be. Clearly right now, we have large parts of the world where the young have no idea what will happen to them over their life time. They are completely apathetic by in large, especially those who choose higher education. This is not helpful to any system.

What is corruption? Corruption is tied in with the responsibility of those who are leading a society. If the leaders of a society are not looking out for the well-being of the entirety of their populace, generally due to an alternative that benefits themselves, or those who will in turn benefit them, the society can probably be said to be corrupt. You might get something like a utilitarian, who says, greatest good for greatest number. So, we will try to make 9 out 10 citizens as best well off as we can. In large, this is at the cost of minorities in the population, I.e. immigrants who are very well educated but now serve as taxi drivers, or work at fast food/corner stores. Despite learning oh, wait, in x country you were a doctor, teacher, etc, but here we give you this....

I would rather offer you the general spirit of what corruption would look like, than hammer down specific definitions. Largely because I think corruption can be contextual. Certain nations might operate del with activities, i.e. through bribes, which other nations consider to be corrupt, but for them it works. I.e. we call bribes things that sway a person to be convinced of our view. It's imaginable that their are societies out there where hospitality and gifts are such an ingrained part of society, that even at the top in government it is expected, but not considered outright corruption. Whether true or not, I don't want to discuss that, just give general points of what corruption can be like, then specific corruption is x.

Again, corruption is tied to a level of responsibility. The more responsibility in a society for all aspects of its interior, environment, population. laws, ideals, morals, economy, politics, education etc The less corrupt it will be. So, for this reason, corruption is most often seen in leaders most blatantly. But citizens can be corrupt. If a system is designed to work a certain way, i.e. taxes, and rich citizens decide, on their own, I want to evade my taxes and cheat. Well wait, you are rich, living in a society that affords you great things, you depend on the population to buy your product, or use your service, whatever, so despite a society that is benefiting you greatly, you are not willing to be responsible and in turn, help benefit that society by following the law and paying your taxes = corrupt. Even poorer citizens. Poorer citizens generally won't have taxes as example, most shouldn't have the degree of taxes as a rich person does... but some nations I guess aren't so good with that. But you might get some citizens who steal, or do something or other to benefit themselves that shouldn't. But whatever. Again, even in this way, it is expected that leaders and those who are at the highest levels of society act most responsibly, because society really depends on those who are doing well to do the most for it. But it is hard to get strict on those who are not in a society, if the society isn't doing all it should for them to begin with. I.e. the moral story of the poor guy who steals bread to feed his starving family. It is responsible to feed your family. It is not considered morally correct to steal in a social contract within societies. ... but what are we going to do. Kill the guy? Not that simple.

Look, I don't claim to have the perfect system. And there are kinks that I'm looking at that might be problematic. But even if it is wrong, at the moment, its one alternative I see that improves on what we have. Even if its just a stepping stone in the right direction... I'm not looking for the perfect system that will solve all our problems for all time. Be nice to find that one out, but in general, just got to make things better. I'm a young adult, but its more than just self bias. I think it is fairly self evident that future members of society are going to be influenced based on how they get integrated in that society. So if a young guy in 72 had a terrible go of it, in 98, he's still not going to be happy, even if it did turn out ok, cause he'll remember back and say, in 72 when i was bla bla bla, system did nothing for me. I hope for my kids it will be better, so I grew up to be a bla bla bla, to make things better. And so on.

Some universal themes here.

posted on March 2nd, 2012, 4:44 am

As for evil, simply put, evil does not exist... I'm currently writing a book about it, but I don't want to spoil any secrets.

...

Certain nations might operate del with activities, i.e. through bribes, which other nations consider to be corrupt, but for them it works.

...

Some universal themes here.

Dude.  That post was 1861 words long.  Seriously.

I don't want to open this up again, which is selfish of me because I'm about to insult you a bit and there's no way around that.  I'm sorry, and if you want to take the last post, I won't blame you.

There is nothing universal about your themes.  You are touching on the realm of philosophy, and trust me when I say that MANY men have talked about morality the way you do and the opposition just blows them away.  If you want just a bit, enough to argue back against people online, I recommend you read a pair of slim books: Beyond Good and Evil by Frederick Nietzsche and Discourse on Method and Meditations by Renee Descartes.  If you have anything good to say that these two haven't already said, I will gladly read your book cover to cover.

Evil exists.  The word "corrupt" applies to a government which operates using bribes, according to the English language and the common understanding of the people who speak it.

If you are using these terms in a way that is different from the rest of the planet, that's your call but don't expect people to listen and respect your opinions when you don't care about them enough to speak their language.  You need to learn to debate while standing on a common ground with people or else your voice will never be heard.

posted on March 2nd, 2012, 6:42 am

How was any of that an insult?

*sighs

Maybe we should continue this in pm mode, if you'd like... either way I don't care.

If I wrote it confusingly that sucks, but if you thought I wrote something off tilt, just ask me about it. Instead of assuming you are going to go into a rant insulting me... I'm not offended, it seems to be a misunderstanding as far as I can tell.

I think I specifically wrote in there 'gifts and hospitality'. Diplomacy. We say bribes are corrupt. if you want to be that black and white about, whatever, bribes are connected to corruption fine.

Quite simply, if governments exchange gifts, or to something along those lines, how do we differentiate between being a good host, and outright bribery. Whatever country you live, let's say you learned that your government officials invited country that does not exist, over for a weekend in your state capital. It was purely a business meeting, foreign policy concerning this that or the other. Then it gets leaked out that on that business meeting, your government spent 46, 000 on items and expenses, and who knows what they are, because that part wasn't released. So you have facts about expenses, but not what they were.

Was this being a good host, or do you think it more likely your government just bribed them maybe 30 000 to do something for them?

Now pretend that it doesn't matter either way. Regardless, just because of the meeting, in future relations that government is probably going to be more favourable to you. So is it good diplomacy or just bribery in disguise?

Countries can get used to certain relations, perhaps involving gifts, and I was merely suggesting that this adds a shade of grey to the issue. But honestly could care less about it. But out of my whole post, you picked three lines that appeared easy to attack. Despite elsewhere where I wrote corruption is a lack of responsibility of those in power, generally that make choices that benefit them, or that make decisions that will benefit others, who will in turn benefit them. Clearly indicating that bribery or coercion in this sense is corrupt.

Universals, well yeah, I just blobbed the phrase in at the end. But I wrote about a guy who stole to feed is family yes? Now lets imagine Tryptic, that I wrote in another post 'stealing is moral'. You could accuse me off speaking some language other than english, and not understanding the definition as 99% of the population uses it. And correct me, stating that in fact, stealing is not moral. stealing is immoral. And a whole host of other things. But then we get into the --- universal themes --- I should have been more clear, of situations that seem to escape rigid moral laws. A guy who is starving, with a family who is starving, might make a choice to feed is family. Well great! You should feed your starving family. Oh but wait! That food doesn't 'belong' to you, it 'belongs' to them. So you are stealing, and now your being immoral and breaking the law. No. Maybe in that context, considering the starving family, stealing was the moral act. Did I mention the mother, and her 9 month old baby? And their two little girls, 5 and 7, and oldest son 12? All these additional facts make it seem less and less like the act was immoral, and there was in fact sufficient moral reason to take the bread. If stealing was stealing, and thats the end of it, bringing up the mother and children should make no difference. But when people hear the story behind the man who stole, the plot develops, and it becomes more complicated.

There is no need to discuss the matter of evil, here, further. One, because as you point out philosophy (which you do know contains universals - so why you seemed to differentiate between them, I'm not sure) has talked extensively about. Believe it or not... it isn't all one sided, that evil necessarily exists. Quite a few say it doesn't. Maybe you should read up on them. Don't mistake 'opposition blows them away' with some form of the wider population. If you live in an area of 90 percent catholics, yeah, that wider population will readily believe in evil, and come up with arguments for it. Doesn't mean it is true (having higher numbers on your side is irrelevant if your position is simply wrong, and no one sees it). Second, because, indeed as you say, I'm writing the book, so you can just read it when it comes out and decide for yourself. You will either agree with my points or not. But I already know they are some very good points.

Now, I don't intend this as an insult to you, but I agree about ending this thread if that seems good. Yes, my posts are long... and it is annoying to write that much, and have it edited down to three lines, while the rest is completely ignored. Especially when the comments for just those three lines don't seem all that pertinent. Mostly, because now the conversation is discussing three very minor points. There were much more extensive ideas you could have commented on, either to agree or disagree, or add your own thoughts. But also, as it is just the two of us mostly in this thread, we could just PM. If the community agrees that that 1861 word post is too long and never reads it, then why continue. Just me and you are writing here now anyways.

posted on March 3rd, 2012, 5:35 am

Double Post: Because I feel that editing my last post would increase it to much without good reason.

I'll just edit this in some way back to the Original Post, or earlier posts that elaborated on my thoughts of what an economy might better be. I'll give an objection I have to my thought, and a particular game component from FO that might help to illustrate why it has reason to still work.

Objection:

Alright, so I stated how individuals have an economic (as far as consumption) belle curve in life. In that at young age you consume less, as young adult - adult most in your life, to adult - elder less in your life. This seems valid to me. We buy things to use in our 20s to 30s that we use for years, like houses, cars, big costs that we don't repeat when we are either in our preteens-teens (2-15), or nearing or post retirement (50s-80s+). Gearing this to your income status seems natural than. I want to make the most in my 20s in 30s, not borrow and have debt, that I then pay off and get back with higher income in my 40s.

However, while on an individual scale economy could be seen as a belle curve, that doesn't necessarily extend to the society. For instance, a society as it exists in the 1950s does not have a belle curve we can predict. We can't say, oh this society is going to have following belle curve: 1950s low. 1975 low. 2000 moderate. 2025 highest. 2050 moderate. 2075 low. 2100 low. Society doesn't grow like that. This part I don't think ends it, but it does need to be considered. Sustained growth may be ideal for the society, although not for the individual. society at 1950s : x. 1950s onwards: more than X, so long as the society grows and reproduces.

So, it requires a balance where the individuals needs are met early on, but growth is still maintained for the society overall. So long as the young are able to create that with their wealth, with whatever additions the rest of the society can contribute, it might work. But that would be a natural objection I can see that is debatable.

FO: Starting resources!

In FO you don't start out the game at 0, go into debt for getting a star base, and further in debt to get your first mining stations that are going to help generate your wealth as the game goes on. Then later, when you can afford multiple mining expansions, you profit. I know this might not be a perfect analogy,  but just to illustrate.

As a faction, you are freely given 4000 di, 2000 tri, and 500 supply that you never worked for, for free. Your faction just gave that to you! Good job factions 

It's much the same. Society should give something. Everyone deserves it. From here, its just context, what, amount etc.

Or consider the whole game. In the whole game, maybe you will mine 20 000 di (including the 4000 to start). (I have no idea, just plopped a number in). It comes down to distribution. How much is given, how much is earned, how much is expended, etc etc. with initial 4000 you have options.

Much the same. In society something should be provided in some way. To give you options. Instead of 0.

Then its how much is given, earned, and when.

staples: that was easy