The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
We are talking about exploitation. I propose a syatem which is not exploitive. You can argue that a certain centrally planned system is exploitive, but the purpose of a communist system is to correct the exploitive nature of capitalism. So don't avoid the argument.
I'm not the one avoiding an argument - I've challenged you repeatedly to describe your "non exploitive" system, and all you do is talk about how capitalism is exploitive. Whatever the "purpose" of a communist system, in practice, it always comes down to a different set of privilege elites making decisions about the value of products, services and labor. At best, you just get a different set of pigs at the trough. Oink.
How is buying stock in a company doing any of this? There are people who do all of this and they are compensated for doing so. You don't have to do any of it to collect profit, rent or interest. Hell, all you have to do is rent your house out, put money in the bank or buy stock in a company.
You are not guaranteed of making a profit at all. My parents have had rental properties, and when you consider the reasonable value of their time, the lost revenues between tenants, damages, maintenance, mortgage costs, etc., they have at best broken even, but gotten their mortgage payments paid down a bit - which would be meaningless if they didn't have the opportunity to sellout in an up market.
Same thing with stock - you have no guarantees.
Savings in the bank? You earn interest, but whether interest earnings after taxes keep pace with inflation is beyond your control.
MtG, we are talking about an isolated deal between two agents. One has an advantage and the other is at a disadvantage. It's very simple.
No, reality is that you don't have an isolated deal. I don't have a designated employer, and there's no employer that's out there "ordered" to hire me. There's a pool of employers that can compete for my services, and a pool of people competing against me to provide those services. I can pick and choose, and so can everyone else. Now if the limits of your competence are dressing up as a cell phone and holding a sign, you have some problems, because there are a lot more people who can provide that unskilled, low value service, and relatively few people who want it.
Opportunity to plan isn't ****. You are still at a disadvantage. The other party also has tiime to plan and will always have more resources, connections etc. Chances are you will plan wrong and you will be in debt which will put you at a greater disadvantage.
I started my working life with a backpack, a sleeping bag, about 30 bucks, a few days worth of food, and some clothes. Oh, and a bicycle, but no place to keep it, since I was living in the great outdoors when I left home. I didn't choose to stay there.
And again, you're engaging in the double fallacy of assuming that there are only two parties, and that the (one and only) employer will always gain in power. I should take you on a tour of Silicon Valley, and I could point out to you where a lot of now-dead companies you've probably never heard of used to be. Opportunity and results are dynamic for everyone, except those who don't plan for them.
People do have to accept the best deal available to them. Just because you accept the best deal doesn't make that deal fair. Take the system overall. It's unfair because the majority of deals (jobs) are unfair. Sure some smart individuals can become the exploiters instead of the exploited, but the system is still unfair.
And the alternative is having the state assign you the job and determine both the wage and the price you will pay for the things you use? And that is fair how? The majority of jobs are not unfair. Some are, most are not.
So ask yourself why there was the shortage in the first place. The only way an employee can get a break is when capitalism is functioning at its worse. Evenentually they don't really benefit because the system breaks down completely.
The reason that there's a shortage is that supply and demand are elastic, and technology, among other factors, creates new jobs and new business opportunities.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Originally posted by JohnT
Has anybody bothered to explain to you the time-value of money? I.e. if I'm going to loan your sorry ass $150,000 to buy a house and you want to take his own sweet time (like 20, 30 years) to pay me back, well I'm going to charge you extra for the time that my money is being spent on your house.
And Kid? Since time is the one resource we can never get back, you can be sure I'm going to charge you for the percentage of my life that is inconvenienced by not having my $150,000 at my disposal.
I mean, I'm sure you knows this. This can't be a completely original thought... why do you discount it so heavily? Do you consider my time and my money's time to be a limitless resource, to be disposed according to your needs?
Has anyone explained to you that if I already owned a house that I wouldn't have to rent from you, and you wouldn't be able to exploit me. I mean come on. Is that so hard to grasp?
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Perhaps you could describe for me a scenario in which someone manages to "sit on their ass and collect a profit" while other people work for them? I've known peope who've sat on their asses (or just had the reverse Midas touch) and lost their asses, but they didn't make a profit. I've known business owners who've put their life savings at risk and worked their asses off, putting in more hours than any of their employees, and made or not made "profits" depending on their overall business results, while the employees got paid regardless and got to go home at 5:30 every day with none of their savings at risk.
I'm on the school Mac now, and I don't know how to cut and paste too well on it. Forgive me.
Let's take the case of the owner/manager. The owner doesn't have to manage his business. He can hire someone to do it. If he hires someone that will obviously cut into his profit. The owner/manager does work, but he only earns what he would have to pay another manager to do the work that he does. The rest of his profit comes from the exploitation of his employees. And the interest that he makes when he puts those profits into his bank account comes from the exploitation of some workers. If he buys real estate and rents it out, this can directly or indirectly come from the exploitation of workers.
Everything of value comes from human effort, not just by human ownership of things.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Has anyone explained to you that if I already owned a house that I wouldn't have to rent from you, and you wouldn't be able to exploit me. I mean come on. Is that so hard to grasp?
Good, you answered this one. Right now, we rent, and we're definitely exploiting the owner.
They wanted to sell this house, but the market was soft and there were no buyers. (rather nice corner lot, close to the ocean but not too close, close to the border but not too close, easy access to everything of use, large Roman villa style with lots of windows, marble and wood floors, stone, etc.) So they put it up for rent, and we saw the sign because it was only three houses away.
We negotiated the rent price down, and what we pay per month is a pittance compared to the value of the house, we can move at any time, we didn't have to tie up a down payment, or incur any form of long term debt, we don't have to concern ourselves with major maintenance, and because we haven't tied up any capital, we can either make a "take it or leave it" offer to buy this house, we can buy the empty lot across the street or the adjoining empty lots on the next block, or we can invest the money in unrelated things.
We have all the flexibility, and use of the house for a very low effective cost in relation to it's value. They own a bunch of dirt and rock and assembled building materials from which they derive a decent, but small in relation to total value, income, if and as long as we live in it.
"Exploitation," to the extent it exists, is partly a matter of perspective (which is why you commies have to work so hard convincing people they're exploited), partly a matter of market dynamics, and partly a matter of which alternative opportunities you choose. In this case, there is no doubt in my mind that renting is advantageous to us as the renters.
BTW, as far as "already owned a house" - what do you expect, that the state should pay the cost of building it, and then just give it to you? The time value of money, and the opportunity cost are there regardless.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I'm not the one avoiding an argument - I've challenged you repeatedly to describe your "non exploitive" system, and all you do is talk about how capitalism is exploitive. Whatever the "purpose" of a communist system, in practice, it always comes down to a different set of privilege elites making decisions about the value of products, services and labor. At best, you just get a different set of pigs at the trough. Oink.
I'm not saying that a centrally planned system can't be exploitive. I'm just as much against one that is exploitvie as I'm against a capitalist system that is. Central planning has the potential to be less exploitive than capitalism. Capitalism has no such potential. It doesn't function well with out it's exploitative nature. Exploitation is fundamental to capitalism.
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You are not guaranteed of making a profit at all. My parents have had rental properties, and when you consider the reasonable value of their time, the lost revenues between tenants, damages, maintenance, mortgage costs, etc., they have at best broken even, but gotten their mortgage payments paid down a bit - which would be meaningless if they didn't have the opportunity to sellout in an up market.
Same thing with stock - you have no guarantees.
Savings in the bank? You earn interest, but whether interest earnings after taxes keep pace with inflation is beyond your control.
The more capital you have to invest the better your chances are. If you are rich and lose all your money, you are just a dumb ass. If you are poor and lose money its because of your initial disadvantage.
Think of poker. If I'm playing with more money than you and we have equal ability. I will win 9 out of 10 times.
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
No, reality is that you don't have an isolated deal. I don't have a designated employer, and there's no employer that's out there "ordered" to hire me. There's a pool of employers that can compete for my services, and a pool of people competing against me to provide those services. I can pick and choose, and so can everyone else. Now if the limits of your competence are dressing up as a cell phone and holding a sign, you have some problems, because there are a lot more people who can provide that unskilled, low value service, and relatively few people who want it.
You get to choose the best deal. Not choosing the best deal is no choice at all. That's not rational, and no one expects people to behave that way. Even if they did what would the point be. Considering options which rational people would not make does nothing for your argument.
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And the alternative is having the state assign you the job and determine both the wage and the price you will pay for the things you use? And that is fair how? The majority of jobs are not unfair. Some are, most are not.
Why wouldn't it be fair? As long as everyone did the same amount of work for the same pay.
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The reason that there's a shortage is that supply and demand are elastic, and technology, among other factors, creates new jobs and new business opportunities.
No. The reason there was a shortage is because capitalism sucks. It could not allocate resources efficiently. We have been told since at least the early eighties that all of the jobs were going to be in computers. Did that matter? No. How was the system to train the correct number of people for that job? What if all of us would have been trained to do that job? Then there would be an over supply. The price mechanism works for ****, and therefore so does capitalism.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
I'm on the school Mac now, and I don't know how to cut and paste too well on it. Forgive me.
Let's take the case of the owner/manager. The owner doesn't have to manage his business. He can hire someone to do it. If he hires someone that will obviously cut into his profit. The owner/manager does work, but he only earns what he would have to pay another manager to do the work that he does. The rest of his profit comes from the exploitation of his employees. And the interest that he makes when he puts those profits into his bank account comes from the exploitation of some workers. If he buys real estate and rents it out, this can directly or indirectly come from the exploitation of workers.
Everything of value comes from human effort, not just by human ownership of things.
You mean the human effort expended in acquiring the capital the owner invests and puts at risk in his business?
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
"Exploitation," to the extent it exists, is partly a matter of perspective (which is why you commies have to work so hard convincing people they're exploited), partly a matter of market dynamics, and partly a matter of which alternative opportunities you choose. In this case, there is no doubt in my mind that renting is advantageous to us as the renters.
Yes it is a matter of perspective. I can understand why you would want to rent. Now maybe you can understand why I have to rent. Because I have no means to own.
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
BTW, as far as "already owned a house" - what do you expect, that the state should pay the cost of building it, and then just give it to you? The time value of money, and the opportunity cost are there regardless.
Capitalism organizes labor is such a manner that no house has been built for me. There is no surplus of housing available for those who can't afford it right now. That is a huge part of the exploitive nature of capitalism. Things are produced for the priviledged and not for the people who work at least as hard if not harder.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
If you are rich and lose all your money, you are just a dumb ass. If you are poor and lose money its because of your initial disadvantage.
Take note - only the rich can be dumbasses. Poor people can only be disadvantaged.
By the way, Kid, I would qualify as a worker, not a capitalist. I'm an office worker who doesn't work as hard as I could/should. I could, with some motivation, improve my qualifications and get a higher-paying job, or even start my own business. Doing that, however, requires two things:
1) hard work
2) guts (to accept risk)
Given that my current job is decent, I work with good people, I'm paid fairly well, and I'm naturally pretty lazy, I'm sticking with what I've got. You will NOT, however, hear me *****ing about not being rich. If I truely wanted to be rich, I'd be willing to bust my ass to become so. I'm not, though, since there is more to life than money.
Take note - only the rich can be dumbasses. Poor people can only be disadvantaged.
By the way, Kid, I would qualify as a worker, not a capitalist. I'm an office worker who doesn't work as hard as I could/should. I could, with some motivation, improve my qualifications and get a higher-paying job, or even start my own business. Doing that, however, requires two things:
1) hard work
2) guts (to accept risk)
Given that my current job is decent, I work with good people, I'm paid fairly well, and I'm naturally pretty lazy, I'm sticking with what I've got. You will NOT, however, hear me *****ing about not being rich. If I truely wanted to be rich, I'd be willing to bust my ass to become so. I'm not, though, since there is more to life than money.
-Arrian
I'm not *****ing about not being rich either. I just want to be treated equally.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Tweet
Comment