Official: Free Market Economics (Repost)

[Drogue]

No, social benefits in an FM society (as I want) is a mixed economy. I am arguing against a completely FM society (without employment/ecological laws and public services), and at the moment, I believe a Planned economy is perferable. Ideologically, I would prefer Planned to FM, and Green (which I believe is a mixed economy with a strong Green ethos and laws) to anything else.

Your USSR analogy, though true (the USSR was Planned) is not an example of a perfect planned market, anymore than the USA is a perfect Free Market. I would rather have the Government controling the economy, and society, than large corporations. The USSR also had objectives to out produce the USA (which was unnatural and virtually impossible) and a strong bias towards capital, rather than consumer goods.

[Kirov]

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

The planned economy of Russia failed not because it was planned. Mistakes made by soviet rulers were much more than that. Note that corruption, repressions and sticking ideology with almost every part of life (both private and social) are not built in planned economy...

AFAIK, scandinavian states are examples of success of planned economy combined with both efficiency and democracy.

[Drogue]

Yes, and an example to us all. Though not completely Planned, they are nearer to that than anything else.

[GeneralTacticus]

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

Explain the Soviet Union then.

Western imperialism and oligarchies is exactly what will happen under FM.

Back this up, please. Western imperialism came about, at first, because the governments of Europe wanted more land (for settlement) and access to the resources of Asia, and continued on because they saw no reason to stop, until after WWII. At that point the US took over the imperialist role, in order to allow it's corporations control over as much of the world as possible. FM won't lead to that unless we let it; it's an internal policy, not an external one.

As for the olgiarchies; even if we do find ourselves with a group of super-rish businessman, their wealth won't make them into an oligarchy unless we permit government vorruption, which is universally recognised as a bad thing.

FM rewards greed, and this creates the old West.

FM rewards self-interest and ability. Call it greed if you wish; that doesn't make it bad.

As such, under Planned or Green they don't happen, under FM they do.

Under Planned the oligarchy is the government that contorls the economy; under Green, there is no oligarchy, but it's not viable (especially not jnow) as an economic system, when compared to FM.

All you have said are reasons why under FM we will repeat these mistakes, and under Planned or Green (or combi of both) we will.

Please clarify that statement; I don't know what you mean.

I'm aware *your* version of FM, with Government and controls etc will result in less of these, but that is you version, not the pure, unadulterated FM that we have if we make the switch in SMAC.

SMAC doesn't say that if we use FM, we will use your 'evil twin' version of FM, so my version is perfectly valid as an interpretation of what we will use.

Just like the USA is a Free Market. You tried to highlight the difference between FM and US corporationism, which is the natural result of FM. Do not confuse Communism and the corrupt regime of Stalin.

I'm pointing out that you can't use the argument 'the US used FM, it was bad, therefore FM is bad' without me pointing to the Soviet Union.

A liberal left system is more *pure* communism than an Authoritarian/totalitarian one like Stalin's.[/

Pure communism won't work, it's as simple as that.

Which is exactly what FM is, a lack of laws on business, letting them get on with making money.

FM is a market economy; it doesn't specify what laws you put in place to protect the environment. Besides, even if the only thing the government is interested in is helping generate more money, they would still want to prevent oil spills and the like, because they result in huge losses for the company that owns the tanker, as well as for people who fish from the seas that are polluted, or who make money out of fish species affected by the spill, directly or indirectly.

Under a more FM system they still wouldn't be outlawed, especially a liberal one, because of a Laissez Faire approach to business.

See above. If companies run the risk of such a disaster in order to make more money for themselves at the expense of others, then there's a soid reason for the government to intervene. Nobody is hurt by reasonable safety precaustions.

Milton Friedman, eminent economist and a liberal FM advocate (like the DLP) said "the only responsibility of a corporation is to provide a profit for its shareholders", as being a truly FM economy.

Did I ever say I believed that? No. I don't know about Archaic, but I'm not an advocate of an entirely Free Market, such as you think I am.

Actually it does. If someone is only RPing, and so does not care about in game effects, just the society and moral consequences, then they can ignore non-RP reason

But you can't ignore a reason that is simply not presented in RP terms. A reason is just as valid if it's presented as 'we'll get our enxt tech is 10 turns rather than 16' rather than 'we'll devleop new technologies almost twice as fast'.

. We will win whatever, so why not be ignore in game reasons?

You're really fond of this concept, aren't you? We won't win if we allow ourselves to believe that we will to the extent that we stop trying.

If your so keen to say this to everyone who expresses an interest, perhaps you'd like to back up more of yours. Such as the ignoring non-RP reasons above (you never said why we couldn't ignore them),

I just did.

or your statement below that it is worth it even before Environmental Economics.

Of course it's just an opinion; one which I've backed up. There will be no significant Drone problems if we implement FM, we will get a substantial economic boost, and ED will not be catstrophic either. Besides, EE won't cause a sudden surge in energy production, the way things currently stand; it would if we had more solar collectors, but we've gone for forests instead.

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

Because in an argument, if you cannot back up an statement, it is not a valid argument, and hence cannot be considered as one. If you post something into an argument which is simply an opinion which you don't wish to argue over, you should say so.

And the USA resembles FM more than the USSR resembles Planned, although they both twist there ideals a lot.

Actually the USSR was a totally Planned economy; the State controlled the economy. That it did not use this control to the benefit of the people does not mean that it wasn't Planned; if Planned (or Green, or FM, for that matter) were a system of values, it would be under the Values heading, not the Economics one.

One controlled by elected government officials.

Being elected doesn't make you competent or mean that you have the best interests of the people at heart - especially not when you have a few people elected by a huge population wielding enormous power. That's why we need to limit the power of the government.

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

What if we think it's fun to play to win rather than adopt an approach of mismanaging everything because we'll still win? It's just as valid an approach as yours.

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

Free Market is about allowing the market to 9(argely) run itself, as opposed to Planned, under which the government controls the market.

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

Depends how you define 'successful'.

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

Why? Unless we go down the US road and allow the rich to buy out our government, how will the rich gain significantly too much influence on our faction?

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

How the f*ck do you come to the conclusion that because some are richer than others, only they will vote??

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

Some will become rich, and some poor; but the rich will only take power if we allow them to corrupt the government, which we won't.

Planned Or Green => The government have final say on any subject concerning the faction as a whole. .

The government has final say on that under FM too, in case you haven't noticed.

And the government is in turn controlled by the election and poll voting made by the citizens as a while.

We don't have polls on every economic decision made by our government, and just because someone is elected, that doesn't maked them competant.

=> Every citizens will have the same amount of decision making power as the others

Don't make me laugh. The government officials who govern economic policy will have far more power than any corporation, as they will have an entire economy to control, and they don;t have to poll every little decision they make. They are also not bound by market forces that will destroy a corporation if it alienates it's customers.

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

Democracy and FREEDOM. People shouldn't have to be subjec tto the whims of the government if they want to get a good job, or good housing, etc. If they have the talent or the money to pay for them, they should get it.

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

Drogue, your version of FM (where there are no social services or anything) is FM without Psych. Our version of FM is FM with 20% Psych, which I have been advocating from the beginning.

Planned is also fairer, in that no matter what you earn, you have access to public services.

See above.

the fire brigade will come and help.

You have a SERIOUSLY warped idea of FM if you think it means you'll be denied emergency services.

Free education also puts people in a meritocracy,

Where exactly have we advocated that there be no free education?

It means we all start on a level playing field, so where we get to depends on us, not our parents wealth.

How's that? Do you intend to confiscate all inheritance? Or do you just mean that money won't matter?

This is freedom in the sense that we are all born equal, and able to do what we want.

We're all born equal, but form that moment on, we are no longer equal.

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

Part of democracy is allowing the people to have their say - and we're trying to persuade the people to democratically choose to be free.

No longer will you have equality of opportunity, those with more money rather than those with more merit will be the successful ones in society

You're ignoring the fact that unless you're talking inheritance, in order to get money you NEED merit. The fact that people have different ideas of merit to yours (or mine) doesn't mean their views are invalid.

In the end free market also contributes to the dissipation of democracy, for when the governing class isn’t chosen for quality it is chosen for material wealth:

What in the name of the seven hells gives you that idea?

Damn I've got to go, and I don't know if I'll be able to post again tonight. I'll address the rest of the points ASAP.

[Pandemoniak]

In answer to Kirov, saying he find no fun the constant bashings between Archaic and myself.

I still consider that a game, and I do as much RP as possible. I consider SMAC an excellent game where it is possible to win by very different manners. One of them is to be a total FM opposant - Deirdre cant use Free Market, but she can win, cant she ?
And though I personnaly dislike Archaic, I consider very RP to have abhorred political ennemies like Archaic and I with each other.

[Kirov]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

I'm pointing out that you can't use the argument 'the US used FM, it was bad, therefore FM is bad' without me pointing to the Soviet Union.

GT, you are perfectly right in terms of logic. But note that when we compare US' FM and SU' Planned, in fact we compare FM under Democracy and Wealth (that's our choices, too) and Planned under Police State and Thought Control. So we have much bigger right to say that if we choose FM, we will end up with US economy, than that if we choose Planned, we will end up with USSR's one.

In other words: our faction running Demo/FM/Wealth would resemble US, but our faction running Demo/Planned or Green/whatever would not resemble USSR, but rather scandinavian states.

What if we think it's fun to play to win rather than adopt an approach of mismanaging everything because we'll still win? It's just as valid an approach as yours.

Why do you leave me the choice only between our victory and "mismanagement of everything"? I will support every steps needed to win, but in our case FM is not needed, it just brings the victory closer. The opposite doesn't mean we will lose.

[Kirov]

To Pande: I'm just surprised at these 'personal dislikes'. If you don't like Archaic because of his character, well, that's your right, but in my opinion we shouldn't dislike each other because of political views. In fact, it would be very undesirable if everyone had had the same opinions. As long as noone is offensive, there is no disliking them.
It's good there are liberals here. Their views can be very helpful.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Kirov
To Pande: I'm just surprised at these 'personal dislikes'. If you don't like Archaic because of his character, well, that's your right, but in my opinion we shouldn't dislike each other because of political views. In fact, it would be very undesirable if everyone had had the same opinions. As long as noone is offensive, there is no disliking them.
It's good there are liberals here. Their views can be very helpful.

I dislike Archaic mostly for the way he misconduct a debate, the way he misbehave, his exceptionnaly bad RPing and the way he starts personnal attacks and accusations.

I do not necessarly dislike people who disagree with my opinions (I like AdamTG because he has a very diplomat and intelligent approach, I like my best friend who is an evil rotten millionaire capiltalist, and I like my cat though she eats everyday and never do any kind of work to earn and deserve her paté pour chats )

[DeathByTheSword]

hell scandinavian countries are as much planned as the netherlands is.....i really believe you all have a warped idea of what planned economy means.....but that is what i think....i will no judges and i will not condem...i will only be amazed and will stay neutral in this discussion

[GeneralTacticus]

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

I agree with you there, in that it's democracy that makes the idfference, however economic matters DO have an impact on freedom - just how free, after all, is a society in which the media is controlled by a handful of people (whether state bureaucrats or corporate CEOs), or where you depend upon the whim of the state to get a good job?

I think a partly FM system, in that you have a meritocracy, but in which you can pass down wealth to your next of kin (a reward for hard work during life) with laws to help stability and guard against monopolies; with good public services, that can assure a basic quality of life for eveyone; and, most importantly, that has a strong Green ethos, both in laws and social attitudes; while remaining a libertarian democracy, so that the individual is free to do as he wishes, so long as it doesn't detract from others;

Funny that you would say all this and still support a Green economy; what you're asking for is essentially FM with some Psych spending and steps taken to limit ED (and btw, I DO want low ED, I'm just not willing to cut down on mineral production to get it, there being other ways to obtain it).

I think society has advance to the stage that people are not just governed by their own interests, but also by the interests of society.

But what are these 'interests of society'? Who defines them? Who defines what society is? Society is not an entity; it's a concept, and as such it has no existence except in the minds of people - and those people will often have differing ideas as to what it is, and what it's interests are.

No, social benefits in an FM society (as I want) is a mixed economy. I am arguing against a completely FM society (without employment/ecological laws and public services),

Which is not what's being proposed; we want FM with 20% Psych, which is exactly what you're asking for.

I believe a Planned economy is perferable. Ideologically, I would prefer Planned to FM, and Green (which I believe is a mixed economy with a strong Green ethos and laws)

Planned is total state contorl over the economy, which has never worked before in an industrialized economy (though it has only been implemented in communist nations). However, under such a regime, democracy cannot survive, because of the enormous power that is granted to the government.

I would rather have the Government controling the economy, and society, than large corporations.

Why? If the economy is the domain of corporations, then the power of the government is reduced, and the corporations will still have the government standing over them to enforce the law. Under Planned, the government is essentially it's own law.

The planned economy of Russia failed not because it was planned. Mistakes made by soviet rulers were much more than that.

The mistakes made by Soviet leaders only had the effects that they did because the economy was Planned.

Note that corruption, repressions and sticking ideology with almost every part of life (both private and social) are not built in planned economy...

Repression and 'sticking dieology' are not; nor is corruption, however the effects of what corruption there is will be enormously magnified because every section of the economy will be under one authority, rather than many.

AFAIK, scandinavian states are examples of success of planned economy combined with both efficiency and democracy.

And how exactly do they function? Somehow I doubt that they really fit the definition of Planned...

GT, you are perfectly right in terms of logic. But note that when we compare US' FM and SU' Planned, in fact we compare FM under Democracy and Wealth (that's our choices, too) and Planned under Police State and Thought Control. So we have much bigger right to say that if we choose FM, we will end up with US economy, than that if we choose Planned, we will end up with USSR's one.

In other words: our faction running Demo/FM/Wealth would resemble US, but our faction running Demo/Planned or Green/whatever would not resemble USSR, but rather scandinavian states.

The USA, a democracy? It ceased to be a true democracy when the corporations were able to take control of the government, and began the rapid slide into a police state soon after Sept. 11. US government policy for decades has been to acheive what you (rightly) hate about it; poverty, massive inequality of wealth, and the erosion of democracy.

Why do you leave me the choice only between our victory and "mismanagement of everything"? I will support every steps needed to win, but in our case FM is not needed, it just brings the victory closer. The opposite doesn't mean we will lose.

I never said it would; I simply said that I see no reason to pick something other than the optimal path, simply because it won't cause us to lose. You do want the best for our people and for humanity, don't you?

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
I dislike Archaic mostly for the way he misconduct a debate, the way he misbehave, his exceptionnaly bad RPing and the way he starts personnal attacks and accusations.

Translation:
I dislike mostly for the way he insults me when I've been completly illogical and stupid in a debate, the fact that he dares to actually do that, his refusal to make RP arguements the sole allowable arguements in debates, and the way he points out the fact that I know absolutly nothing about what I'm talking about, and neither did any of my appeal to authority Neo-Marxist heros.


You want to accuse me of personal attacks Pan? Fine, I don't give a damn either way. But if you keep up with all these fallacies of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, [url=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-spite.html]Appeal to Spite[/b], Guilt By Association , Hasty Generalization, Misleading Vividness , Speal Pleading, Spotlight, and worst of all...Poisoning the Well, well, quite frankly, you're asking for it.

[Pandemoniak]

Theres no need for mindless translation, at which you already proved your mediocrity.
Moreover, I know far more than you about marxism.
Saying Im stupid is a personnal insult.

What you just posted is just an excellent demonstration of what you always do : mind business that are not of your own, using text/essays/so called fallacies to make arguments instead of you, just because you have no roleplaying talent.

And Im not "poisoning the well" as you pretend, I dont think what you said is wrong just because you're a jerk, I think you're a jerk because of the way you conduct the debate. It was clearly stated in my previous post, you dont have to make so much efforts to get countersens in your so called "translations".
I'd better not check all the other fallacies, I might have to post a ten pages description of your incapacity to read a text without a proper "translation".

[GeneralTacticus]

just because you have no roleplaying talent

So what if he doesn't roleplay? That doesn't make his arguments any less valid. If you are willing to ignore the actual 'real world' of the game and stay in your comfortable, deluded 'RP' world, then admit it for everyone to see, rather than hiding behind statements like 'you have no repolaying talent'.

[Pandemoniak]

It is a choice to RP or not to RP. And his argument or my arguments are not made any less valid indeed. But the fact that he doesnt RP is one more thing that meakes me disliking him.
Its my right to dislike people, and I use it.

[Aaron Blackwell]

So what if he doesn't roleplay? That doesn't make his arguments any less valid.

True enough, but that does not make his argument more valid either.

Besides, Archaic is far from making 'good' argument supported with facts. So it is quite annoying to have people like him making critics on other people for the same things that he is constently doing himself ... which lack in argumentation.

If you are willing to ignore the actual 'real world' of the game and stay in your comfortable, deluded 'RP' world, then admit it for everyone to see, rather than hiding behind statements like 'you have no repolaying talent'.

Well ... I don't want to throw oil in the fire but what are you trying to achieve by saying that ?
Not really an 'unbiased judgment based on fact'

Now, personally, I think that these forums is hardly the good place for such a conversation.
It basically spoils the fun for the people who are just coming here to have good fun playing a Democracy Game.

Perhaps, you should conduct this conversation in private ( via emails, icq or whatever) instead of here....