OFFICIAL : Economics

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Archaic
We'd need massive eco-damage for that, and we'd never reach it.
Empath units, and trance defenders. *Yawn* Of course, you're overstating the worm "problem" anyway. You seem to think that having an eco-damage level of 6 in 1 base will mean we're going to be overwhelmed by worms.

I wasn't talking about worms. And I think you have understated it. Of course an ED of 6 won't result in worm-rape, but why should we have ED at all? We don't need it. Let us win harmoniously and peacefully.

Originally posted by Archaic
Besides, I thought you liked the fungus Mr. Green.

I never said that. Another Strawman.

Originally posted by Archaic
Yup, that's right. We can just turn ourselves into a technological backwater. Benifits of Higher Clean Mineral Limit > Negatives of Fungus Pops.

In your opinion. I would go the other way. I don't think the extra minerals are worth the fungus pops. In don't thinkw e nneed the extra minerals to win, and I think if we can win, easily, without pops, it is worth it.

Originally posted by Archaic
*COUGH* Public Services. *COUGH* 20% Psych. *COUGH* Welfare Spending. *COUGH*

Stop repeating your strawman of a Free Market and actually go economic theory. It's getting tiresome.

No strawman, and I know my theory. True, the 20% psych does give you services, however in an FM economy you cannot have public services. That would make it a mixed economy. My statement was about facilities anyway. It is true than under FM our facilities will be run for profit. I do not want that. I want free education and healthcare for all. Under FM, it will cost money,even if you have some welfare. Your constant "20% psych cures everything" speech is also getting tiresome. No it doesn't. Psych does not include a lot. And under FM, it does not make them free. That is the problem I have. The ethos of being run for profit rather than for benefit.

Originally posted by Archaic
Let's see. Would it be because under the free market, military police aren't the norm as they are in our current economy? The statistics provided by Cedayon prove just what a big difference that makes. Because the industry is government controlled DOES make it harder to improve things. Why? Inefficiency and corruption. The rest you're saying there is good intentions. But the road to ruin was paved with those. Good intentions alone don't work.

No they don't, but under FM, if it doesn't make profit, it does not happen. And why do we have corruption? Inefficiency I will accept, that is inevitable from a Planned economy (although no problem if we switch to Green) but corruption? I do not know any evidence for that?

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak For only the price of a reasonable growth instead of a balooning population, our empaths demonstrated that we'll be able to speak to Planet.

Growth rate isn't the only price, there's also the matter of 41 ECs/turn and 26 lab points/turn. Not to mention the large number (29) of people who would be happier (as I mentioned, we could easily solve the drone problem by providing for their needs). We don't even have to cause any ED, especially with the tree farms that are going up soon.

I can understand people using and even voting by RP arguments in a Demo. Game, its when the RP arguments win against overwhelming in-game factors that I begin to wonder what's going on.

edit:

from Drogue:
I would like to congratulate Cedayon. Not only has he provided much information, argued well, and given us other options, he has become a very good mediator. I like his idea above for in game, and only have RP arguments against that style.

Thank you ... but I guess I should have seen from the beginning that no one voting Green would be swayed to FM, even with all the advantages and the ability to get rid of almost all in-game evidence of the disadvantages. Due to this fruitlessness, I don't intend to re-enter this argument except to offer whatever facts I feel are helpful.

[GeneralTacticus]

I wasn't talking about worms. And I think you have understated it. Of course an ED of 6 won't result in worm-rape, but why should we have ED at all? We don't need it. Let us win harmoniously and peacefully.

You seem to be misunderstanding our position to be that ED is a good thing. It isn't. It's a minor nuisance that shouldn't prevent us from continuing our industrial development, any more than the reduction in tiem spent on recreation should prevent one form attending school.

No strawman, and I know my theory. True, the 20% psych does give you services, however in an FM economy you cannot have public services. That would make it a mixed economy.

You seem to be very hung up on the distinction between the two. Why does there need to be a distinction at all? A mixed economy is a Free Market with some state-owned industries.

My statement was about facilities anyway. It is true than under FM our facilities will be run for profit.

Our facilities are built at public expense, for public use. Facilities run for profit are built privately. Surely you see the distinction (and as for privatisation: It's our own choice to privatise an industry or not, and if we don't want to privatise health care or education, there's no reaosn why we should).

I want free education and healthcare for all. Under FM, it will cost money,even if you have some welfare.

Such thing swill always cost money, no matter what kind of economy you use. Even if a service is 'free', it still has to be paid for in taxes, which you also have to pay. The only difference is who pays for it, and as long as it's reasonably affordable, I see no reason why people should share the burden based on income rather than the benefits derived from the service. (e.g., would you consider it just for a rich person who is always scrupulously careful about their health and has never had to go to hospital in his life to have to foot the bill for someone with a very low income who gets into hospital nearly every week from car crashes or what have you? It doesn't always work like that, of course, but I see no reason why people shouldn't pay for their use of the system.

Psych does not include a lot. And under FM, it does not make them free. That is the problem I have. The ethos of being run for profit rather than for benefit.

Isn't it possible to run it for both? While it isn't possible to focus exclusively on both (that would be a contradiction, after all; you can't spend 100% of your time on two things at once), but trying to make a profit doesn't mean you can't be concerned for people's welfare. You do remember that health care and so forth needs be paid for, don't you?

And why do we have corruption? Inefficiency I will accept, that is inevitable from a Planned economy (although no problem if we switch to Green) but corruption? I do not know any evidence for that?

Corruption goes hand in ahnd with an inefficient bureaucracy such as we have (and before you argue that we don't have one, we're PKs, remember? It's part of our factional character), because if funding that's needed right away takes months to be approved, then the obvious thing to do is bribe the bureacrats in question. All else follows from there.

I would like to congratulate Cedayon. Not only has he provided much information, argued well, and given us other options, he has become a very good mediator. I like his idea above for in game, and only have RP arguments against that style.

I agree with him too, and I don't see any RP arguments that you could make against that style, considering that the solutions he proposes merely suggest infrastructural expansion... which we we all support, right?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
You seem to be misunderstanding our position to be that ED is a good thing. It isn't. It's a minor nuisance that shouldn't prevent us from continuing our industrial development, any more than the reduction in tiem spent on recreation should prevent one form attending school.

I understand that well. However I think of ED as more than a nuisance, and the extra mineral output unecessary to some extent. I would rather not have the minerals of the ED. It is simply a question of which you prefer.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
You seem to be very hung up on the distinction between the two. Why does there need to be a distinction at all? A mixed economy is a Free Market with some state-owned industries.

Yes, I am hung up on it, and yes you are correct. It is a very important distinction. I like mixed economies, i do not like completely free market ones. Having to choose between extremes, I choose Green, which I feel is a mixed economy, but with legislation and ethos towards the environment. We've been through this before. We need a distinction because FM is not mixed, there is a major difference, as you haev cited.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Our facilities are built at public expense, for public use. Facilities run for profit are built privately. Surely you see the distinction (and as for privatisation: It's our own choice to privatise an industry or not, and if we don't want to privatise health care or education, there's no reaosn why we should).

Well, if you believe that Planned is completely nationalised, then surely FM is completely privatised. If you believe that we can keep nationalised industry under pure FM, then surely you can argue that we have private industry under our current Planned system? Under FM, the facilities would be sold of (a la late 20th Century Thatcherism in GB) and privatised. I do not mind private industry, but want some public industry too. Hence I do not like Planned completely either, but see it as the lesser of two evils, and actually quite beneficial at times (as is FM, but I choose the environment over FM for RP purposes in this game)

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Such thing swill always cost money, no matter what kind of economy you use. Even if a service is 'free', it still has to be paid for in taxes, which you also have to pay. The only difference is who pays for it, and as long as it's reasonably affordable, I see no reason why people should share the burden based on income rather than the benefits derived from the service. (e.g., would you consider it just for a rich person who is always scrupulously careful about their health and has never had to go to hospital in his life to have to foot the bill for someone with a very low income who gets into hospital nearly every week from car crashes or what have you? It doesn't always work like that, of course, but I see no reason why people shouldn't pay for their use of the system.

I disagree, although I know that is a very common opinion of the economic right. The reason I disagree is because I think healthcare is too important not to be free at the point of sale. I think the fact that people could die, or continue to be ill, because of their economic status, is not the best system. Although I do not completely agree with "to each according to his needs", I think for healthcare a system close to that should be inacted. Of course, some of the cost can be passed on to users, in the sense that if you smoke, you will use more of the healthcare, and thus the high tax on cigarettes, and likewise with alcohol. I think some cost is good, so as to disuade people going to their doctor for everything, but that that cost should be minimul, so as not to deny service to anyone. I think we all deserve medical treament, regarless of our income. I think the same with education. It is too important to be left to the market, and thus it is a merit good. I do not want to see 100% tax, and a total nanny state, whereby all products are provided only according to need, but I do not think this is inherant in Planned. I think it simply means all companies are nationalised, thus (probably): wages are more equal, some services are free at the point of sale (education, healthcare), massive price fluctuations are smoothed (especially for essential goods, like food) and there is a strong social welfare scheme. This is not all inherant in Planned, granted, however it is easier under Planned than under FM.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Isn't it possible to run it for both? While it isn't possible to focus exclusively on both (that would be a contradiction, after all; you can't spend 100% of your time on two things at once), but trying to make a profit doesn't mean you can't be concerned for people's welfare. You do remember that health care and so forth needs be paid for, don't you?

Yes, I agree, a balance is preferable. However, without the option of a balance, I would choose to run them for benefit, rather than profit. After all, wealth is just a measure of what someone has, it does not mean anything. If someone is rich, they have more money, and thus can use it to their benefit. The only use of money is for the benefit of somebody. Thus by running them for profit, we are runnign them for the benefit of those in power. I would rather have it being used for the overall benefit, the general or average benefit for everyone, rather than for the benefit of those to whom the profit goes to.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Corruption goes hand in ahnd with an inefficient bureaucracy such as we have (and before you argue that we don't have one, we're PKs, remember? It's part of our factional character), because if funding that's needed right away takes months to be approved, then the obvious thing to do is bribe the bureacrats in question. All else follows from there.

I do see why corruption is more likely under Planned than FM, however I do not see it as endemic. Yes we are inefficient, I have never argued against that. However, I think there can also be bribes under FM, and because of the extra value money has in an FM society, the fact it controls the economy, rather than directly by a person, it can be a problem. I think bribes and corruption will come with FM, possibly less than with planned, although that is speculation. I do not think the corruption is necessarily more endemic of Planned than it is of FM. It may be, but that is just speculation on the individuals involved.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I agree with him too, and I don't see any RP arguments that you could make against that style, considering that the solutions he proposes merely suggest infrastructural expansion... which we we all support, right?

Yes we do, but they suggest more to me. As I have mentioned above, I think some things are too important to be decided by the market, and thus I do not want FM. His measures go much towards making FM more feasable, however I think the efficiency, equality, and environmental protections of Green are more important. If I was living in this world, I would rather have the government's aims be efficiency, equality, public services and the environment, than profit, and pro-business policies.

With FM we can generate enough wealth to provide for everyone

I would dispute that. The 'trickle down' effect rarely works. If we have more money under FM, it is much more likely to go to the rich than those that need it most. We can generate enough wealth to provide for everyone, but it won't get to everyone. It will be squewed towards the top end, with those at the bottom not getting enough. That for me is a key issue. I would choose to create £1 for the poor over creating £2 for the rich. Even though it is less money, it is needed more. This is the choice as I see it. Under FM we get more money, but less goes to the poor. I would choose what we have now, over having double the Ec, but making the poor even poorer.

[Method]

ooh, a tie. how exciting

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Drogue
I would dispute that. The 'trickle down' effect rarely works.

First, I'm not sure I'm advocating 'trickle down' (more like making sure there isn't anybody that fits the description of being "down" there, or at least few enough that they can be provided for directly). Second, I'd like to highlight "rarely"... I sometimes get the impression that you feel it is either impossible or so improbable that it's not even worth a try.

If we have more money under FM, it is much more likely to go to the rich than those that need it most. We can generate enough wealth to provide for everyone, but it won't get to everyone. It will be squewed towards the top end, with those at the bottom not getting enough.

Does it have to be that way? I don't think so, we most certainly can put the money to work where it is needed most. All that's required is for us to do our jobs right

That for me is a key issue. I would choose to create £1 for the poor over creating £2 for the rich.

My desire is to make it so there are no more "poor". I think we can do that and would like to come up with a plan, but first I would need some sort of in-game (or at least precise) definition of "poor" so I know who you're worried about. It's getting somewhat tiresome to be beaten over the head with this hammer labeled "the poor people that won't get what they need" when I can't even get a solid definition of that very group

I would choose what we have now, over having double the Ec, but making the poor even poorer.

At the risk of repeating myself: FM. Doesn't. Have. To. Be. That. Way.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Cedayon
My desire is to make it so there are no more "poor".

As poverty is a relative thing, the only way to completely eliminate economic poverty is equal wages for all. That opinion would make you a communist I guess.

Disclaimer: I haven't read any of the previous posts of this thread. My eye just fell on that sentence.

[Cedayon]

That had come to mind, which is why I put poor in quotes. I had a definition like "below the poverty line" or "so lacking in assets and income as to be unable to sustain a certain minimum standard of living" (defining such a minimum standard is non-trivial in and of itself, but I think it could be done).

Communism, frankly, doesn't sound so bad to me if it is done right. FM, however, results in far more wealth according to the game. If planned or green had +2 econ, I would probably be supporting one of them ... there are secondary issues revolving around civil rights, but I think we could mix liberty with planned/green in some satisfactory way.

FM, for me, is a means to an end... that end being the happiness and prosperity of the people. It's all about that +2 econ

Edit- oh, the practical definition of "poor" I'm currently working with is "drone caused by something other than a bad police rating and units outside of territory". I've asked the anti-FM folk a few times if there's a definition they prefer, but I don't think they've gotten around to answering yet.

[Maniac]

Ah yes, I almost forgot the reason I opened this thread. Some people might not like what I have got to say.

I voted for planned in this poll. However that option didn't make it so there will be a second poll between free market and green.
I have said before in the Jedinica Vrijstaat thread that I can make up RP arguments for each economic choice to be meritocratic, and that the choices available are too extreme for me, advocating a mixed economy.
Therefore I no longer vote RP in the economics poll, but look at what's most beneficient for J(edinica) V(rijstaat). The advantage of Planned is popbooming, which goes easy in JV, seeing its high nutrient production and creche infrastructure, and which is in plain SMAC currently impossible to achieve any other way before Eudaimonia. The advantage of Free Market is the extra energy for every citizen. And as JV happens to be a very dense populated region... Green has neither of these two big advantages. Sure, some extra efficiency. But by building creches I have got rid of most inefficiency anyway.
Therefore the choice between FM and green in a next poll will be easily made. FM has extra energy. Green doesn't. Period.
Unless of course we change our values back to wealth. That opens the possibility, together with some golden ages, that we reach +2 economy just like under FM. With the extra efficiency, eco-friendliness, and absence of drone problems, the biggest benefit for JV would then be under green. Of course we'll have to spend cash on psych to reach GAs in most bases, but seeing our talented faction nature, this shouldn't be too hard. I haven't tested it in-game though.

Anyway, my question is: do some of you like this plan for green-wealth-GA, and could it be polled somehow, or should I vote FM?

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Maniac
FM has extra energy. Green doesn't. Period.

So you do see the light ... or is that the dark side? Meh, either way

Unless of course we change our values back to wealth. That opens the possibility, together with some golden ages, that we reach +2 economy just like under FM.

GAs add +1 econ in a base, so with wealth they get the +1 energy/square? ... So we could get the main benefit of FM, even with Green or Planned? ... I would kinda miss knowledge, but I could live without that so long as we get that +1 energy/square ... and the industry bonus, mmm...

Anyway, my question is: do some of you like this plan for green-wealth-GA

I know I like it.

[Archaic]

Thing is.....we could achieve GA's far, far, FAR easier under FM w/ 20% Psych than we could under Green/Wealth, simply because we already would be coming from a +2 Econ position, and would have the credits necessary to provide the required Psych spending.

Now if only it were FM/Wealth + Lots of Pacts & Treaties with AI factions having large numbers of bases. Then we'd be hitting +4 Econ in GA bases, and let me tell you, that does wonders for credits by commerce.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Cedayon
So you do see the light ... or is that the dark side? Meh, either way

The recent discussions may have given you a wrong image of my opinion. You have only come here recently after all.
IRL I'm not a marxist or RP a member of CCCP. IRL speaking I'm simply a moderate-left guy who desires equal chances, meritocracy, a stronger state, fewer power to the corporations to prevent monopolies etcetera... Of course that heavily contrasts against extreme-libertarians like Archaic. RP speaking I was even the founding member of the P4 Poly Party for Progress and Prosperity, with as most known and still active members DeathByTheSword, TKG, Archaic and myself. And as biggest nemesis Pandemoniak and the CCCP. The party supported a free market economy, but with certain left-wing accents. So it's not like I'm blind for the advantages of free market. It's just that gametechnically speaking I found the growth advantages also important, and RP speaking that Archaic drove me in the arms of Planned, as because of him I associated FM with extreme right-wing libertarianism and bad manners.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Archaic
Thing is.....

Yeah, but we don't have much pacts and treaties (yet?), so anything above +2 economy isn't worth it IMHO. Gametechnically speaking because the benefits of green/planned/wealth might be bigger. I should check it. RP speaking I cannot associate FM+wealth with anything else than some consumerist individualist televisionized shallow narrowminded money-is-everything faction. For me personally out of the question.

[Cedayon]

Maniac: I was getting the impression that you appreciated the energy benefits of FM, but voted against it for other reasons. I was just elated to see someone on the "other side" bring up the "Energy. Period." argument

Archaic: Getting the initial GAs would be much easier under FM, yes, but once the G/W GAs begin they'll be somewhat self-sustaining (assuming that there's psych spending, which is essentially a given)...

*goes and tests G/W 30/30/40...* Well, there would be quite a few GAs, but several bases (particularly SS and TD, Maniac) would require more in the way of energy and/or infrastructure to achieve Golden Age status with any sort of ease (I had to do a lot of doctor-izing workers to get to 50% talents in some bases, even with 30% psych). I'm not sure how practical this approach would be right now... Soon, though, with more energy enhancements/facilities, I think almost all of the size 9 bases (and Concordia) could get GAs under such a system.

Still, I like the idea of using Wealth and GAs to get the +1 energy/square. I'll probably take a closer look soon, when some of my coursework is out of the way.

[GeneralTacticus]

Drogue:

I understand that well. However I think of ED as more than a nuisance, and the extra mineral output unecessary to some extent. I would rather not have the minerals of the ED. It is simply a question of which you prefer.

Why more than a nuisance? As long as it doesn't destroy important terraforming (boreholes in particular, but IIRC, pops don't derstroy Boreholes), and as long as we have a few Empath units around, the effects are trivial at the level of ED that we currently have.

Well, if you believe that Planned is completely nationalised, then surely FM is completely privatised. If you believe that we can keep nationalised industry under pure FM, then surely you can argue that we have private industry under our current Planned system?

well, consider the economy as a sliding scale from completely privatised to completely nationalised (with a few sub-threads concerning matters like environmental regulation, but they're not relevant right now). You have pure FM at one end of teh scale, pure Planned at the other, and a graduation between the two of them (with Green of the side somewhere; it is, as I have said, a bit nebulous, as the only issue it addresses at all is the environment). Unfortunately, SMAC didn't use such a system (it would have added greatly to the SE system if you could set how much of each choice you wanted, rather than just having to pick one), so one has to approximate.

Now, one can consider pure FM to be FM without Psych, although I'm really not sure how one could change from pure Planned to not-so-pure. Thus, according to this view, FM with Psych is moved down the scale a bit from pure FM, which would mean that you get limited public industries,a long with welfare, etc, as already mentioned.

Under FM, the facilities would be sold of (a la late 20th Century Thatcherism in GB) and privatised.

What makes you think that? (and why would I be advocating that we imitate one of the people I most despise?) We own the facilities. FM permits private enterprise, it doesn't require all government property to be sold. If we want an industry to remain government-owned, then it will damn well remain government-owned.

I disagree, although I know that is a very common opinion of the economic right. The reason I disagree is because I think healthcare is too important not to be free at the point of sale. I think the fact that people could die, or continue to be ill, because of their economic status, is not the best system.

Note the phrase as long as it's affordable. I do not want to see people denied medical care that they need because they can't afford it, but nor do I want people to pay no price for it. They place a burden on society by using the system, and I see no reason whyat least part of that burden should be born by them, as long as they can bear it.

I do not completely agree with "to each according to his needs", I think for healthcare a system close to that should be inacted. Of course, some of the cost can be passed on to users, in the sense that if you smoke, you will use more of the healthcare, and thus the high tax on cigarettes, and likewise with alcohol.

Why try to pay all costs with extra taxes? While a tax on stupidity might not be a bad idea, as it discourages it, why not get at least part of the cost imposed by people who take health risks on them, to help pay for their treatment?

I think some cost is good, so as to disuade people going to their doctor for everything, but that that cost should be minimul, so as not to deny service to anyone.

Precisely what I was advocating: Charge them a fee for their use of the system, but make sure they can actually pay it.

I think the same with education. It is too important to be left to the market, and thus it is a merit good

I agree, again, on the subject of education; considering the importance of it in helping people to better themselves, I don't think it's really fair to deny it to people because they can't pay for it. I have, though, no objections to private schools not funded by the government; if people choose to send their kids there rather tah to a government school, that's their right, and I see nothing wrong with it.

I do not want to see 100% tax, and a total nanny state, whereby all products are provided only according to need, but I do not think this is inherant in Planned. I think it simply means all companies are nationalised, thus (probably): wages are more equal, some services are free at the point of sale (education, healthcare),

Neither of those things is necessarily true; it depends upon the people who administer the system. The Human Hive serves as an example of what happens when the system is run by tyrants.

massive price fluctuations are smoothed (especially for essential goods, like food)

Well, since the mechanism of supply and demand is gone, then there won't be any price changes at all unless the government decrees that there will be.

and there is a strong social welfare scheme.

There is absolutely no basis for this in a Planned economy at all (of course it can have one, but it's not in any way part of the system). A Planned economy would either try to have everyone employed (the Marxist system), or, potentially, treat unemployed people no better than they would be treated under pure FM.

This is not all inherant in Planned, granted, however it is easier under Planned than under FM.

Well, it's a hell of a lot easier to achieve thoise things when the government can decree that such and such a thing will happen, and lo-and-behold, it does. However, these things are not inherent, and they don't necessarily work better under Planned than FM, considering the additional resoruces available under the latter.

Yes, I agree, a balance is preferable. However, without the option of a balance, I would choose to run them for benefit, rather than profit. After all, wealth is just a measure of what someone has, it does not mean anything.

Well, assuming it's not gained through crime or corruption, wealth is also a measure of success, and if success has no real benefits, why should anyone care if they fail or not?

. If someone is rich, they have more money, and thus can use it to their benefit. The only use of money is for the benefit of somebody.

Yes.

Thus by running them for profit, we are runnign them for the benefit of those in power.

You've jumped from saying that the only use of money is to the benefit of people, to saying that running for profit serves the people in power. How exactly did you make that connection, and what did you base that conclusion on anyway?

I would rather have it being used for the overall benefit, the general or average benefit for everyone, rather than for the benefit of those to whom the profit goes to.

But what is the overall benefit? Who defines it? Who decides what works towards it, or how it should be achieved?

I do see why corruption is more likely under Planned than FM, however I do not see it as endemic.

Once the bureaucrats get used to taking bribes (and considering how long we've been using a Planned economy, they've had a very long time to get used to it), it becomes a feature of the system, and it just proliferates until it is endemic.

Yes we are inefficient, I have never argued against that. However, I think there can also be bribes under FM,

Ye,s of course there can be, human nature isn't changed by a change in the economic system, however there will be less reason for it, and bacause it is less likely to be government corruption, there will be less obstruction to punishing it.

and because of the extra value money has in an FM society, the fact it controls the economy, rather than directly by a person, it can be a problem.

...? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. If you mean that corruption is more likely because money is more important, I have to ask, how, and why? The fact that resources ar emore abundant means that there is less incentive to get them through bribery (which is on motive for corruption), and I have no idea what you mean when you say that the economy being controlled by money rather than by a person is problem. Haven't you ever heard the phrade 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'?

I think bribes and corruption will come with FM, possibly less than with planned, although that is speculation. I do not think the corruption is necessarily more endemic of Planned than it is of FM.

The reason corruptino is more likely under Planned is that in a society like ours with a huge bureaucracy to go through to get things done, it makes sense to speed things up via bribery if you need things done right now. It becomes a necessity for people who can't wait.

It may be, but that is just speculation on the individuals involved.

Well, of course it always comes down to that, but corruptino is easier to conceal if it's within the body that's supposed to be preventing it.

Yes we do, but they suggest more to me.

...? He gives solutions for every genuine Drone in the faction, and they all involve public Psych facilities. What more is there to suggest?

As I have mentioned above, I think some things are too important to be decided by the market, and thus I do not want FM. His measures go much towards making FM more feasable, however I think the efficiency, equality, and environmental protections of Green are more important.

1) What's efficiency if there isn't enough to be efficient with?

2) Why is a Green economy necessarily more equal? Of course, there's less to go around, and thus less scope for inequality, but what's wrong with more inequality as long as everyone benefits?

If I was living in this world, I would rather have the government's aims be efficiency, equality, public services and the environment, than profit, and pro-business policies.

1) Efficiency: see above.

2) Equality: Ditto.

3) Public services: I bleieve that's been adequately covered already.

4) The environment: Why are you so hung up on this issue? Isn't the point of environmental protection to help improve the quality of people's lives? If we have a system that massively improves the quality of our lives, at the price of a small amount of environmental damage, what's wrong with that?

5) Profit & pro-business policies: as long as everyone benefits from them, what's wrong witht hem?

Maniac:

Yeah, but we don't have much pacts and treaties (yet?), so anything above +2 economy isn't worth it IMHO.

We've got about as many of them as we can reasonably expect to get, unless we manage to win Miriam over and/or force some of the less friendly factions into submission.