OFFICIAL : Economics

[Drogue]

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

My point is that, in reality, it does. You say if we do our jobs right, it won't happen, but in a free market, we do not control it, the market does. We cannot "put the money to work where it is needed most", since under FM, we cannot control the market. The free market does create disparity of income. It does have to be that way, unless you believe that almost everyone is altruistic, which is completely against human nature, and all evidence. I would support a Mixed economy, a free market with many constraints, but a totally free market will cause poverty. Much as I hate absolutes, I do not think there has ever been a place where this is not the case, and all economic theory points this way. I am not saying that disparity of income is completely bad, since it creates an incentive to work, however I would rather have a more equal system, and thus I am against a large disparity of income.

[GeneralTacticus]

Do you even read what we post? We've addressed the point that the FM we want is *NOT* a pure Free Market so many times I've lost count, and yet you continue to act as if what we'd never written it in the first place.

You say if we do our jobs right, it won't happen, but in a free market, we do not control it, the market does.

This is not the United States. The market does not set it's own rules; we set the rules for the market.

We cannot "put the money to work where it is needed most", since under FM, we cannot control the market.

Yes, we can direct the money where it's needed, via taxes.

The free market does create disparity of income.

Nobody has ever argued otherwise. What we have been arguing against,f rm the beginning, is your claim that the market will create poverty, which it won't.

I would support a Mixed economy, a free market with many constraints, but a totally free market will cause poverty.

That's funny, because that's basically what we've been advocating all along.

Much as I hate absolutes, I do not think there has ever been a place where this is not the case, and all economic theory points this way.

Really? Which economic theory? How?

I am not saying that disparity of income is completely bad, since it creates an incentive to work, however I would rather have a more equal system, and thus I am against a large disparity of income.

What is the problem with a disparity of income, so long as no-one actually ends up any worse off? Do you support an 'equality of poverty'?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

Because it is a bight on the landscape, causing visual, noice and air pollution. I want a green, happy, prosperous land, and ED stands inthe way of that.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

I completely agree. As a moderate-lefty (actually a centrist IRL) I feel FM with psych is still too far IMHO, and Green is much closer to what I want.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

Under a pure FM, there cannot be state ownership of industries. Even with 20% psych, it does not stop there being only private enterprise, and no nationised industry. It just means there is some tax.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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 read that. Where does that line lie? What is affordable? If someone cannot pay anything, ie. has no money, do they get free treatment? I agree, people should pay whatever they can afford, and the price should be affordable, but even in the mixed ecoomies of the late 20th Century, that didn't happen. Under FM, I do not think it will be affordable for everyone.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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?

That was the idea. The people that are likely to use it more, pay more for it. I do not want it to cost at the point of sale, because then you get the problems when somebody is in no fit state to say whether they wish to be treated, whether they can afford it. If someone is unconcious, and they get taken to hospital, they will be treated. However afterwards, the hospital will charge them, and what happens if they cannot pay? They have not agreed to be treated, to pay for treatment? I could accept, at a pinch, a system whereby A&E is free, but normal doctor visits cost money, however I would prefer a completely free-at-point-of-sale system.

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

Yes, but I doubt we wil get that under FM

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
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.

Again I agree. I see nothing wrong either. However, I would like to keep state schools, that we do not get under FM, and would rather abolish private schools (under Planned) than state schools (under FM)

I will answer the rest soon, when I have time, however I have a lesson now

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Do you even read what we post? We've addressed the point that the FM we want is *NOT* a pure Free Market so many times I've lost count, and yet you continue to act as if what we'd never written it in the first place.

And I have replied, repeatedly, that even with psych, the underlying system is pure FM. We cannot have nationalised industry if we choose to use FM. With psych or not. I do not think psych changes that much, save meaning we pay tax, an have some welfare and subsidies. it does not create or allow nationalised industry.