Who would you join?

[Velociryx]

I'm on my way out the door, so will attempt to answer the economic portion of the post when I return....nahhh, I don't think you're stupid in the least, by the way! It's just that....economics and money supply and stuff is not a topic that a good many people understand all that well. But...more on that later!

For the moment, I leave you with one thought.

What if we DID give that lazy guy all the money he needed to become a quantum physicist?

Does not the fact that he was sitting on his duff waiting for and expecting a handout in order to get that degree suggest that he is...well...lazy?

And if so....does that not further suggest that he won't do a whole lot for the economy even if we spend the tons of money on him to get him his degree?

After all....if he wasn't willing to put forth any effort to get that far, what evidence do we have on the table that he'll be willing to put forth any effort once he is "there"?

I would rather we spend our money helping those who clearly want to help themselves, and let people with a bad case of the lazys settle where they will.


-=Vel=-

[waab]

It was some time that I answerd but I will do a try.

I am from Sweden, we have been ruled by a socialist goverment in ages, actuly the same party as ruled this country almost in 100 years. We are wealth, and I mean wealth. Sure we doesn't take the US, but we are only 9 milion people (I think that is New York). But we had until the 1991 a very high living standard, the best hospitals in the world. What happend the Sovjet died and capitalism started to rule my country (and no we have never been under a communistit dictator), the lvinving standard is getting worse for the poor, our hospitals are in caos

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by frankychan
Yang built his city's undeground to better protect his citizen's from the mindworm attacks. Even though you you make valid remarks about "Yang's Inner Circle", the whole purpose of building cities underground is to help protect his peoples vulnerabilty against the mindworm menace.

You do make a valid argument there about Yang protecting his drones from the mindworms. However I may have another reason for his building underground.

As Marid said, random nerve staplings are commonplace (I'm assuming that he is sourcing from the books by Mike Ely). Maybe he builds his 'utopias' underground to hide most of these atrocities. Of course, if you nerve-staple the drones in the game, unless you have sunspot activity, you will get caught and sanctioned. However, that is only a large-scale nerve stapling of everyone in the base. The kind of random nerve-stapling we're talking about is smaller scale, and is down to individuals rather than everyone.

I can only guess what other atrocities are being hidden underground within Yang's utopias, outside the sight of surface scanners.

Though Yang's utopian vision is noble, and he puts much thought into words blurbed in the city improvement/tech/secret project movies. But I am left disillusioned by the atrocities he seems to have no compunctions against committing, and now I perceive Yang as a liar, a fraud, and paranoid despot and security freak. I quote the psych profile of Yang (from the official SMAC site), with key points in bold...

Psych Profile: Protectionist
Exceedingly deep and powerful mind; near flawless visual and kinesthetic recall. Somewhat antisocial, security minded to the extreme, with elaborate psychological defense mechanisms against emotional entreaties. High stability and loyalty to mission indicated.
Driven primarily by need for security and control. Powerful will; leadership potential high but strong tendency to control and manipulate followers can result in almost cultlike following. Tolerance for pain exceedingly high; .96 on Atherholt Trauma Function Test.

CAUTION: Earlier psych tests show suspiciously near perfect normals along all axes. Subject may use strong will and extensive knowledge of psychiatric indicators to manipulate test results in his favor.

[Sikander]

Economics

The value of whatever money there is is in a constant flux, and there are several factors at play there. The two most important ones are the total money supply and the total value of the economy. The more Euros there are out there the less each of them is worth, while the more valuable the economy represented in Euros is the more they are worth. Both factors fluctuate every day, and indeed influence each other.

As Vel tried to point out previously, the supply of money is not simply the stacks of government printed bills sitting in warehouses and wallets. All of us can create money, and we do so all the time. For instance, a boy comes to my house and offers to mow my lawn for 20$. I agree, but I don't pay him up front, I want to see how good of a job he does before I just hand him the money. So he goes to work on the stipulation that if he does a good job I will pay him 20$. So he is not laboring for actual money, but for the promise of money. By the time he gets my lawn half-mowed he will have created 10$ worth of value (in this case improving my property value as well as my neighbor's property value to a lesser extent), but he will have received nothing yet in payment.

In this manner work gets done and value is added to the economy on the basis of trust rather than an immediate exchange of government approved currency. This is how most transactions in the economy take place. I work for two weeks, and at the end of that time my employer cuts me a check (in reality another promise of payment). I use electricity etc. for a month and the utility company sends me a bill. All of these promises of payment are as good as currency for the economy, because they enable the process of creating and distributing the goods and services that make up the economy. Note that in very few cases does actual currency change hands. This is why limiting your thinking of what a money supply is to currency is leaving out a vast majority of what is going on in a healthy economy. Currency is a subset of money. Money is the symbol for the willingness of people to believe in someone else's ability (and willingness) to produce something valuable enough to justify their own investment of time (resources, etc.) in exchange. Money would exist regardless of whether or not currency did. Currency makes money more useful by providing a benchmark that is tied in value to the overall value of the economy rather than to any one commodity, which provides stability and a more or less rational (in every sense of the word) valuation scheme.

The value of the economy in total tends to rise in the long run. There are a number of very good reasons for this. Firstly the number of people rises most of the time, and with it the labor supply (as well as demand). Secondly the technology used by workers increases productivity, sometimes enormously (as we see with the computer). Finally, the methods we use to organize our endeavors sometimes improve, which can bring another bout of value increases. SMAC does a decent job of showing the effects of this growth over time. You start with two bases which produce very little, and by expanding your population of bases and increasing the productivity of those bases and increasing the efficiency of those bases through systemic means (SE settings) by the end of the game you can produce thousands of times the FOP that your initial base did in 2101.

In most years therefore the value of the economy increases well above whatever inflation may be created by the creation of too much money in relation to the value of the economy. But sometimes inflation outstrips the growth of an economy, which makes currency lose relative value and in general hurts those who have capital (though it may help those who have borrowed money in the short to medium term). How does inflation come about? There are several ways that money can be created, and each of these ways can contribute to inflation. For instance governments can simply print money and spend it, or borrow huge sums of money and spend that. Argentina is going through an economic crisis right now that is largely the result of the government spending money that the Argentine economy was not creating. This drives the value of the currency down and the cost of capital up, which tends to be a real blow to an economy. In a similar vein, private individuals and businesses can run up the money supply by borrowing money excessively and entering into dubious contracts where payment is not at all certain. Some of this loaned money is lost, which lowers the value of the business or individual who worked but did not receive the expected increase in their own value. These sorts of stings tend to reduce economic activity as people become more wary about trusting the promises of payment from just anyone who comes along.

To summarize: Economics is not a zero sum game, a fact that obviously needs to be more vigorously explained at every level of education. The real zero sum game is trying to please human beings, who are always going to ***** about their living standards (or just as often someone else's living standard) regardless of how good they have it because of some animal desire to have it better than someone else, or to see that no one has it better than they do regardless of the circumstances involved. Thus both the greedy capitalist and the wild-eyed Marxist are driven by more or less the same impulse, which is competition. Both are allowed to exist because they create a perceived value to society. The capitalist increases the wealth of everyone to some extent, though he demands the majority of the wealth he has supervised the creation of be reserved for himself. The Marxist serves as an alternative who waits in the wings ready to pounce if the perception of injustice grows too large, and in general tries to draw some of the capitalist's money into areas where either domestic tranquility is improved or even occasionally (gasp!) where it improves the value of the economy at large.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by waab
It was some time that I answerd but I will do a try.

I am from Sweden, we have been ruled by a socialist goverment in ages, actuly the same party as ruled this country almost in 100 years. We are wealth, and I mean wealth. Sure we doesn't take the US, but we are only 9 milion people (I think that is New York). But we had until the 1991 a very high living standard, the best hospitals in the world. What happend the Sovjet died and capitalism started to rule my country (and no we have never been under a communistit dictator), the lvinving standard is getting worse for the poor, our hospitals are in caos

You are now in competition with economies which have been pursuing a capitalist vision for as long as you have pursued a socialist vision. This is going to be difficult for several reasons. Firstly, you cannot count on most of your competition having to spend a lot of their money defending themselves from the non-existent Soviet Union. This means that they will be more competitive than they were before the wall came down, with the exception of the U.S. which seems to find new trouble very quickly. Secondly Sweden made a lot of money in WWII by remaining neutral and useful to Germany, and it made less money for a much longer time remaining neutral and useful to both sides during the Cold War. Now nothing is preventing the much larger economies of Western Europe and Russia et al from interacting directly with one another, which has cut into the value of your economy a bit. Another factor is that you are in the EC which is probably forcing your formerly protected industries to compete locally against foreign companies who have a lot less of a tax burden. This cannot be good for those businesses, though for consumers the prices should come down a bit. Finally, you have probably the most expensive government sector in the world per capita, which gives your government a great deal of control over your economy, but greatly limits your economy's ability to grow itself, as much of it's capital is claimed in taxes and not returned as investments in areas that are actually creating wealth rather than redistributing it. Thus even though you invest more money (as a percentage) on the poorer and less productive sectors of your population, your total economy grows much more slowly. Apparently the needs and demands of your poor have outstripped the ability of your economy to provide for them at the level to which they have become accustomed.

[waab]

Yeap we got rich because of the WWII and so did the USA. But you are missing that our army is guit large in % of population. We have no country behind us, we stand alone.

Yes the EU is totaly pointless for us in Sweden, actuly our BNP is so large that we are in % the largest giver in money to the EU.

The thing is this in the late 1980 and then begining of 1990, we started to sell out factories which have been making money to the goverment for a long period. Now we need to get that money from taxes instead. And then the capitalist starts to scream, first they want our factories and then when we need to use taxes to get money the get angry.

Mayby my life has been safe for so long that I can't help loving socialism, but I say like this. I rather pay 60% in tax and know that the goverment will help me. I am not one of them screaming about high taxes and then later screams about that the hospitals doesn't get enough money.

By the way, do you all belive in that it is okay to make money on sick persons and I don't mean doctors and nurses, I mean stockholders. Myself think that it is distgusting.

[Maniac]

Well, I was assuming that that physicist was just unwilling to do completely different jobs, but was willing to work for his degree on physics, something he is good at.

And to make sure that the real lazys patients don't profit too much, just make sure the money supply isn't unconditional. Here, if students fail a year at university, they have to pay the cost of redoing that same year themselves. If they succeed the second time, they do again get money however for the next year. Doesn't such a system exist in the US? In any case, it ensures the student has an incentive to pass university without any failure.

Interesting post of Sikander! I'll reread it soon, but now I'll start learning my biology exam on genetics. Very simple imo, so I should be back soon.

Waab, even though Sweden may pay more money to the European Union compared to the others, I think it is still more beneficial to be inside the Union than outside. Your small economy would suffer if they didn't have free trade access to the, compared to Sweden, very large economy of the neighbouring EU.

[LodeRunner]

Very good discussion going on here... Never had any discussions like this on the Age of Kings message boards.

Thanks for the welcome, frankychan, that's very kind of you...

M@ni@c,

Well no indeed. Realizing they haven’t got many opportunities in life, they would lower their expectations.

I think depends on the individual. Being in a poor situation can create more motivation to succeed. In addition, the oppurtunities are there, if that person is willing to take them. Truly, in my situation, where I grew up in what I would say is a lower middle class bracket, it wasn't that difficult to get to where I am today. I did well enough in high school to be accepted into a major (Penn State) university, and after many bumps along the road, I've managed to get my degree and now I'm looking to move up in the world. But the thing is, I could be in a much better situation if I had worked harder. I goofed off in school and it cost me; I'm terrible with my finances and it is costing me. But, I don't feel that I deserve any more than what I have. I'm willing to accept the fact that my mistakes cost me. It motivates me to be smarter and to work harder. What pisses me off the most is people who are willing to take government hand-outs so they don't have to work. I've known people who have said, "I don't want to get a real job because then I'd lose my welfare check." I can't believe that I'm paying for that guy to sit on his butt all day.

You’re attacking the basics of human civilization here. Sure you pay for things that you don’t do, just like the other one pays for stuff he doesn’t do and you do. Without that, there wouldn’t be a society and you would still be living in a cave, fearful that your stronger neighbour smashes your head and comes stealing your daughter.

Let's get one thing staight here, I'd be the one stealing the daughters... Just kidding. I understand that I'm getting benefits by increased commerce because of the airport that was built partially funded by taxes, even though I've never flown. I understand that all of Pennsylvania benefits from the graduates that come out of Penn State, therefore justifying their tax money going to the school. But, this kind of thing can be taken too far, in my opinion. Pennsylvania has received huge chunks of federal money to improve it's road systems. I don't think that Billy Bob in the back woods of Missouri is benefitting a whole lot from those improved roads. At least, though, I paid for part of my education, and I had a choice of universities to go to. I could have choosen to go to another state funded school for much less cost, but I wanted the Penn State name on my degree. Because of that, I had to pay more money, which seems fair to me.

[Marid Audran]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I can only guess what other atrocities are being hidden underground within Yang's utopias, outside the sight of surface scanners.

Are they ever, Azreal. Actually in Dragon Sun Yang gives the other factional leaders the tourists' version of Hive existence, where all its citizens are safe and well preserved underground, working industrously at their farms in harmony, no frayed nerves from wind worm infestation that over-worlders suffer from, and citizens even get a brief recreational jaunt at the Virtual World from time to time. Integrity, vision, lack of distraction, meaningful lives to a communal goal.

What Yang doesn't mention, is that his mines are pits of hell carved into rock, drones and citizens chained together slaving away, he has the highest quota of punishment spheres and nerve stapling on Chiron, and the Virtual World is a psychological monitoring device he uses inconspiciously on citizens and anyone else who uses it, privvy to their thoughts, fears, hidden desires, and loyalties. There is evidence that he's the first faction leader to use Neural Grafting on Chiron, though far from some snazzy corymbic socket at the base of the skull that you chip in software to enchance your mortal coil, it's far more sinister, and invasive.

Yang building his bases underground was at first a practical decision to protect Hive denizens from mind worm ravages, yes. Though it's also a convienent way to keep them under lock and key, and away from the seditious outside influences and corrupting cultures of those other factions. Into the second mission century no other faction leaders are even aware of Yang, obsessively covert that he is. He also enforces periodic Stalinist "cleansing" of his political ranks, looking for and eliminating potential subversives, and Maoist cultural cleansing of his common ranks, "reassignment" of citizens as mine drones, and the like. As your brutal dictators go, Yang is as bad as they come. His communal utopia really has only one goal: To ensure complete control of his citizens, and ensure his own immortality.

Miriam seems to be the most humane of the momentum factions; she has a large flux of disenchanted refugees from other factions seeking to escape from their hollow lives of excess, whether its excess of wealth and decadence (Morgan), excess of knowledge to no end (University), or excess of deference to Planet (Gaian).

[Xian]

i agree with the negative comments about yang and the comparisons to stalin, but also the negative comments about morgan. The idea that you caould always move up is ridiculus. Capitalism IS BASED ENTIRELEY ON THE EXPLOITATION OF PEOPLE. if everyone cound be an exploiter there would be no one to exploit. Ive never believed in the idea that ANYONE is naturally smarter than anyone else, that is elititst propaganda.

AND HOW CAN YOU BE AGAINST THE HIVES DICATATORSHIP and then support the morgans? A CEO IS A DICTATOR. Remember that the vast majority (even in the "land of opportunity" ) DO NOT live under the rule of their governmen nearly as long as UNDER THE RULE OF THEIR BOSS (or central planner, or whatever the name for it is). therefore, its absurd to denounce the hive or spartans or beleivers and not denounce the morgans.

Socialism means the extension of democracy to the workplace... thats all. Capitalism means fascism/dictatorship in the workplace. State socialism (marxism) means dictatorship EVERYWHERE

So i would say the hive would be the 3rd worst (Miriam and Spartans behind) Morganites 4th worst, and gains or peacekeepers the only fctions i would consider


but none of it matters, well all be living under anarchy in 300 years.... |-]

[Xian]

Originally posted by Marid Audran
Miriam seems to be the most humane of the momentum factions; she has a large flux of disenchanted refugees from other factions seeking to escape from their hollow lives of excess, whether its excess of wealth and decadence (Morgan), excess of knowledge to no end (University), or excess of deference to Planet (Gaian).

Joining a fascist religious fundamantalist society to escape excesses!?!?!?!!?!?!

BWHAHAHAHA
LMAO

Genius

[Frankychan]

LordAzreal-Touche.

You got me there.

It seems we have two debates going on right now...

[Marid Audran]

Originally posted by Xian
Joining a fascist religious fundamantalist society to escape excesses!?!?!?!!?!?!

In the timeline and scenario of the book Twilight of the Mind, mid-24th Century and approximate late mid-game/early endgame, the widespread introduction of all the genetic engineering techs (Bio-Engineering, Retroviral Engineering, M/MI, Biomachinery) has created a sort of meritocratic genetic hell ala Gattaca, in which only citizens with superior genes, ordained and engineered from birth, who make up the Perfects and Talents of their respective societies, can hope to excell. Besides the disenfranchised who seek for a little more spiritual substance, the Believers are also sanctuary for all the "normals" out there, with their DNA untinkered by laboratory hands. Though conditions are homely in Believer territories and Miriam's probe team propaganda notorious, I do think their life of religious worship beats the hell out of Sparta or the Hive.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Xian
i agree with the negative comments about yang and the comparisons to stalin, but also the negative comments about morgan. The idea that you caould always move up is ridiculus. Capitalism IS BASED ENTIRELEY ON THE EXPLOITATION OF PEOPLE. if everyone cound be an exploiter there would be no one to exploit. Ive never believed in the idea that ANYONE is naturally smarter than anyone else, that is elititst propaganda.

Exactly my sentiment. The brain is like a muscle. Use it, and you will be bestowed with intellect. Building your own wealth off the backs of others is also bad, unless you cut them an equal share.

AND HOW CAN YOU BE AGAINST THE HIVES DICATATORSHIP and then support the morgans? A CEO IS A DICTATOR. Remember that the vast majority (even in the "land of opportunity" ) DO NOT live under the rule of their governmen nearly as long as UNDER THE RULE OF THEIR BOSS (or central planner, or whatever the name for it is). therefore, its absurd to denounce the hive or spartans or beleivers and not denounce the morgans.

I've found that connection. Even if the Morganites appear to be democratic, it is only that those on top who get to vote, and represent their interests in parliament, and everyone else just has to live with the decisions of one of the few choices of representatives. The way capitalist democracy works, we don't vote the policies, we vote the people who enact/don't enact them.

Socialism means the extension of democracy to the workplace... thats all. Capitalism means fascism/dictatorship in the workplace. State socialism (marxism) means dictatorship EVERYWHERE

Exactly why I am a socialist myself.

[waab]

Originally posted by Xian

Socialism means the extension of democracy to the workplace... thats all. Capitalism means fascism/dictatorship in the workplace. State socialism (marxism) means dictatorship EVERYWHERE

|-]

Actulty state socialism has nothing to do with Marx, if you read Das Kapital, or anything else you doesn't find anything about socialism as it was used in Sovjet. Marx didn't want a state at all because he knowed that it would always be a way to press down the population. What Marx said was that you need the state to press down the capitalism and then let the state die away.