Price Gouging - Fair and balanced, or unfair

[Velociryx]

I have to agree.

Kid, you're a stubborn one...almost as stubborn as me.

Kudos for going back to the drawing board there.

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


People will get paid for thinking, because it's a value to society. Society benefits from thinking so there should be compensation, just as with labor.

hmmm but people are paid for their effort, not their output right?? So my work is thinking and I think hard all day but don't create any tangible product all day. My co-worker comes up with two brilliant ideas during an early round of golf, browses poly all day and leaves early-- who gets paid more? who measures it ??


Also real life

This is not an entirely far-out point-- I'm a lawyer and get paid an hourly rate ( not busy today -- no project to bill until my meeting later ). But sometimes when drafting a complex 100 page agreement, I get so involved that I am thinking about it morning, noon and night-- I've had major flashes of insight while playing hockey, or while gardening .... ObviouslyNOT actively working. Now .. . I grab my dictaphone and will bill the client for the time it takes to specify and expand the idea but I don't bill for the night I spent tossing and turning mulling over the problem . . . the bottom line for me is that the client must be pleased with the overall product at the price I charge . .. If he's not, I probably lose the client. Its the free market at work and like the result. How does all this fit in with your planners?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I have to go now. Maybe I better rethink this incentive idea of mine.

Hot diggity-- This is the first time I have seen Kid capitulate before--we'll make a good capitalist of him yet

Seriously . .. I expect kid to not give up easily and fully expect him to come back with some way that the planners will cause innovation better than the free market

[Velociryx]

I know...when I first read the post, I was stunned! (in a good way)

One thing's sure tho...he WILL give the matter more thought, and be back to give the new idea its requisite trial by fire.


-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I know...when I first read the post, I was stunned! (in a good way)

One thing's sure tho...he WILL give the matter more thought, and be back to give the new idea its requisite trial by fire.


-=Vel=-

yup-- I was suprised-- we had run your tool and invention example at him before and he never saw the problem. I'm actually glad to see him reconsider-- its more fun to try to debate someone that can acknowledge problems with their argument

[Velociryx]

Agreed...and methinks that his next iteration will work out at least some of the core problems, which will keep us duly on our toes...

-=Vel=-

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I have to go now. Maybe I better rethink this incentive idea of mine.

WTF just happened here?!?

Seriously, is this allowed in the OT?

Oh, and Arrian... thanks, you codsack, but at least you got a decent song stuck in my head.

[Kuciwalker]

You know, I've changed my mind before, but I've never actually admitted it in the thread. I've simply adopted the opposite position the next time the issue came up

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The whole innovation topic brings to mind a current dillma I am very much exposed to.

The fact is most companies are looking towards decentalized R&D that emphasizes business unit R&D development. The thought being that any breakthroughs are more aligned towardscustomer needs and also that innovations are geared towards a more entreprenurial approach.

The centralized R&D strengths are that it allows potenitally for cross fertilziation of ideas but suffers greatly in that often times breakthrough in innovation are poorly communicated to the sales/business arms and hence are not directed properly nor implemented.

The same parralels I think apply in grander scale to planned verses entrepenurial soceities. Hence while the Soviet union was magnificinet as basic research as evidenced by any number of chemists physicists etc. the implementation of these technologies into mainstream consumer products was greatly lacking as there was no driving force to do so.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You know, I've changed my mind before, but I've never actually admitted it in the thread. I've simply adopted the opposite position the next time the issue came up

I don't think kid could do that.

For one thing, if he adopted the opposite of his traditional positions, who would we find to champion kid's views

------------------------------------------------

as for me, I don't reverse myself much -- If an issue is unclear, I will await further evidence or adopt a middle-of-the-road approach

[Velociryx]

That's an excellent point, Brother Og!

Some level of centralization has its uses, yes, and it can be a strong model in certain situations (anybody even WANT to imagine a decentralized military command structure...EGADS), but governance isn't one of them, and that's the first hurdle the Reds will need to overcome....the same Spectre that haunted previous iterations of the experiment.

The problem comes down to power.

You put a group of guys in charge of the economy, then by default you give them the keys to the kingdom.

Politics don't matter...at least not in the traditional sense (sure, graft and back room deals come into play...human nature and all that, but traditional politics cease to have meaning for these folks...that's how much power they wield), and in the absence of any way to rein these guys in, they'll invariably succumb to the lures OF the power their have.

They'll wanna keep it, cos...hell, who wouldn't?

And from there, it's only a couple steps away from EXACTLY the same setup that's failed so spectacularly in previous iterations.

Until that is addressed, or human nature takes a rather large U-turn....it's a showstopper.

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It ends up being that but also much more. While the power residing in a few means there is incentive for those few to remain in power by whatever means there is also teh communicational issues even if they were completely altrusitic in their motive.

Decentralized innovation by default means less levels of filter between implementaion and discovery. By its nature thats means better more timely innovation. If we consider innovation the driver of all progress, one can easily see teh model of decntralized innovation has natural advantage over planned innovation. I think its called turn advantage wrt faster innovation.

[Velociryx]

Turn advantage.

Now where have I heard that phrase before?





-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

If only I could have my civ do that so much easier than some national science rate