The Merchant Exchange?

[Impaler[WrG]]

To correct the Monopoly of Goverment perhaps you should be able to "shop around" and become a Citizen of the goverment offering the best deal. Then you pay your taxes to them and get their benifits and laws.

[CEO Aaron]

And you can, with sufficient effort and resources. That's one of the reason that Westernized nations attract such large amounts of immigrants.

[Santiago_Claus]

Impaler, your idea is actually an argument against the U.N. gaining any more power, in particular the power to tax.

If the U.N. had the authority to levy taxes, it would invariably use that power to impose its own vision (or more likely graft) on member states, by denying them funds unless certain requirements were met.

Naturally countries could "opt out" of receiving money, but I'm quite sure it wouldn't work the other way around.

A country could either conform and get some of its money back or effectively pay a huge tax for the privilege of being different.

The sad part is that some sort of world law absolutely needs to exist to protect such interests as the environment, sensible intellectual property protection (the U.S. has gone to one unhealthy extreme and China the other), and slavery (in particular the terrible global crime of forced prostitution.)

[GeoModder]

EU only let new candidate members join when those already have a certain set of base rules within their law system.

Not that the paperwork shows the real situation in some cases, of course.

[Santiago_Claus]

The problem with the EU is that France and Germany are giving themselves special exemptions from the EU's economic stability requirements.

Even if cutting some slack on budget deficits is by itself no big deal, it sets a dangerous precedent: one set of rules for France and Germany, another set for "everyone else" is no way to run an economic alliance.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Santiago_Clause
The problem with the EU is that France and Germany are giving themselves special exemptions from the EU's economic stability requirements.

Even if cutting some slack on budget deficits is by itself no big deal, it sets a dangerous precedent: one set of rules for France and Germany, another set for "everyone else" is no way to run an economic alliance.

Giving themselfes special exemptions and being allowed to by the other EU members are two different things. The result is or eventually they comply, or the Union at some time disbands or accepts a clause that Euro members can be expelled.

[RoadRash]

Establishing a common currency is extremely worthwhile. Likewise it's good to have a common defense plan etc. Beyond lie treacherous waters indeed.

Political organizations tend to micromanage. I predict the EU will gradually sink into this trap, stifling economic growth and freedoms for millions. All in the name of prosperity and benevolence.

[Santiago_Claus]

Like Germany's desire to "normalize" tax rates?

"Normalize" in this case means "force", and "normal" is defined as "whatever Germany's doing", in case you were wondering ...

I can't really knock the EU right now, though, because Germany seems to be on the losing side of this one. To achieve their goal of regulating member states' tax policies they would have to change the EU's Constitution, a measure the UK opposes.

[Hydro]

Very interesting conversation, and I’m sorry I didn’t stumble on it sooner. A couple of comments:

Political system: What we understand as a FM system on earth (in the SMAC sense) is the combination of economic and political systems, so we need to be careful when comparing what we know and understand with SMAC. I would argue that the FM system, by itself, is not protective of the environment. Property owners (more properly considered ‘business owners’ in a FM system) typically have a short term view, and are perfectly willing to rape and plunder to meet quarterly profit goals and leave the mess for the next CEO. What does protect the environment is the political system that the economic system works in. For instance, there are varying levels of (effective) regulation on what is acceptable economic behavior, ranging from reckless pollution in the nominal democracy in Mexico and the dictatorship of China to strict environmental standards in the democracies of Western Europe (with the USA being in between these extremes). FM by itself does nothing to protect the environment, except for preserving value in what is owned or when regulation forces property owners to decide it is less expensive not to pollute.

FM forced to be ‘Green’: Any improvements the West sees in its environment is due to social pressure (e.g. – democracy), where laws that regulate business are enacted due to public outrage. A typical business will happily dump methyl-ethyl-death in the local river or groundwater system, as long as it is ‘allowed’ (either because there are no regulations or regulations are not enforced) and costs them nothing. When these costs are forced on them they then will consider changing their behavior; or they will hire lots or lawyers or consultants (like myself) to put off the day of reckoning as long as possible (or until the next CEO comes along, so it will be his or her problem). There are very, very few altruistic business owners who will voluntarily ‘do the right thing’ when that ‘right thing’ costs them money but gets them no defined gain (I’ve worked for exactly one such business in 14 years; others fight tooth and nail to minimize or eliminate liability for contamination they’ve caused, or force someone else to clean it up).

‘Green’ FM Illusion: Another factor influencing the perceived ‘clean’ nature of Western FM economics is due to outsourcing, typically to areas where there is less regulation cost (Mexico and China come to mind) and less costs for this and other reasons (labor being the other). The result when combined with regulation is a cleaner Western economy, but this is due to smokestacks being shut down (sent to China) or muzzled (regulated). This, again, has nothing to do with FM since 1) they fight regulation that increases costs or 2) simply move the pollution somewhere else.

Technology: FM is good at being innovative in technology to reduce pollution, but I would argue it does so only because it has depleted resources and needs more to stoke its engines (rising energy prices prompts efforts at efficiency), or it is forced do by regulation (putting scrubbers on smokestacks). So, is FM innovative in an environmental fashion? Yes, but only when force to by outside political and economic forces.

As you can tell, I’m pretty jaded about the FM system (as we’ve defined it). It does nothing to mitigate the degradation of the environment or horrors of tragedy of the commons since it has a short term mentality (three months is a long time for FM, but a millisecond for the Earth) and it places no ‘value’ on the commons. Only a political system can do that.

Hydro

[Santiago_Claus]

You've explained all the reasons it doesn't work, but I'm more interested in why it does.

For their population size, free markets have proven the lesser of evils.

Why?

My guess is that a large share of private interest overlaps environmental interest, which shrinks the regulatory problem to a more manageable size.

It could be even simpler than that, though: maybe free markets produce enough prosperity that a critical mass of people have worked their way down Maslow's Heirarchy to a point the environment actually matters to them.

[Quezacotl06]

I usualy find it cheaper to just run psych/wealth to get +2 with Gaians than to do the merchant exchange. Not like morale can get worse right?

[Hydro]

SC – I think you missed the point. FM doesn’t ‘work’ since (as others have said) it is the default economic model humans have used for a long, long time. It’s been tweaked, and given a fancy new name and new abilities as technology has improved. Face it – there have been markets and trading since some enterprising neolithic man traded his clovis point flint spear head for some nifty cowry shells. Let to its own devices (and bereft of other controls) man will consume everything in its path since demand is almost insatiable. This would lead us on a straight road to extinction since, like bacteria in a petri dish, at some point all the food is used up and you’re done.

The controlling factor is the political/social system in which the economic system resides. If that political system sees value in preserving the environment then it will force the economy to give up a portion of its prosperity to get that benefit. If the society is amenable to rivers bursting into flame, toxic air, and groundwater that tastes like jet fuel then that is what they will get.

Hydro

[RoadRash]

Originally posted by Hydro
Property owners (more properly considered ‘business owners’ in a FM system) typically have a short term view, and are perfectly willing to rape and plunder to meet quarterly profit goals and leave the mess for the next CEO.

Agreed, though you are simply describing human nature. Greed and shortsightedness also characterize government bureacracies.

Originally posted by Hydro
FM by itself does nothing to protect the environment...

Again I agree. The level of freedom in the marketplace has little connection to law enforcement. If anything, laws are easier to enforce in a free market. Central control brings a black market inversely proportional to market freedom. Such enterprises are utterly unregulated, and are a boon to organized crime, which in turn erodes political integrity and weakens national security.

Originally posted by Hydro
...others fight tooth and nail to minimize or eliminate liability for contamination they’ve caused, or force someone else to clean it up.

Worst of all, their attempts to shifting the responsibility is often done with the quiet collaboration of paid government lackeys. Which should be an ominous note to those who want government to play a bigger economic role.

Originally posted by Hydro
Another factor influencing the perceived ‘clean’ nature of Western FM economics is due to outsourcing, typically to areas where there is less regulation cost (Mexico and China come to mind)

A good point. But it doesn't refute the horrendous economic disasters endured in various communist countries BEFORE the west started shipping jobs over.

Originally posted by Hydro
As you can tell, I’m pretty jaded about the FM system (as we’ve defined it). It ... places no ‘value’ on the commons. Only a political system can do that.

For myself, Free Market does not equal Anarchy. Poisoning the water supply is a crime regardless of the level of economic centralization. Decentralizing the economy remains a vital and separate goal.

It sounds like you are mainly upset about corrupt business practises. I agree, it's a serious problem. It won't go away by centralizing the economy. It simply requires that governments start cracking down on the cheaters, swindlers, polluters, etc.

[Hydro]

RR – I think you may have missed my point, too, and that we are talking past each other. Economics in any form is not a mechanism for conservation of anything, be it resources, human life, or the biosystem in which we reside. Only the political framework in which it resides can put limits on an economic system (notice I didn’t say FM, since that is a description of a variant of all economic systems).

Corruption: With less regulation (e.g. – government) how, pray tell, will the polluters, cheats, and corrupt individuals and unethical corporations be brought to justice under a largely unfettered and freewheeling FM system? We can pass all the laws on ethics and behaviors we want, but if they aren’t enforced then they are ineffective and useless. Like it or not, Law requires Government. The question is the trade off between the two. To have less Government you have to trust in human nature (HA!); those who advocate more Government see the economy as an animal to be managed lest it get out of control.

Communism and pollution: the Communist ‘planned’ economy produced massive pollution because it didn’t value any form of environmental protection. This does not mean that planned economies can’t do this, only that the government in the former USSR and Eastern Block countries didn’t. And, keep in mind that the USA has had its share of environmental disasters (Love Canal, Three Mile Island, all of Northwest Indiana, the Saginaw River that had a nasty habit of spontaneously bursting into flame, dead estuaries of the Delaware River, and Lake Erie which was dead by the 1960s) and chronic problems (sucking aquifers dry, horrendous air pollution that is getting worse in Houston, and slightly better in LA). Those little environmental problems and disasters happened in the USA under our enlightened FM system. So, why is the economic system as formulated in the West and adopted by the industrialized world seen as environmentally ‘better’, and why is the USA cleaning up its act (slowly, oh so slowly)? Answer: because we’re willing to invest some of the riches of our economy to do so. The Communists in the USSR didn’t, and their people will pay the price for a long, long time.

Again, the point is that the government (and the laws it chooses to enact and enforce), not the economic system (which is simply a vehicle or mechanism), defines the level of protection of the environment for its citizens.

Hydro

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Hydro
RR – I think you may have missed my point, too, and that we are talking past each other. Economics in any form is not a mechanism for conservation of anything, be it resources, human life, or the biosystem in which we reside. Only the political framework in which it resides can put limits on an economic system (notice I didn’t say FM, since that is a description of a variant of all economic systems).

Corruption: With less regulation (e.g. – government) how, pray tell, will the polluters, cheats, and corrupt individuals and unethical corporations be brought to justice under a largely unfettered and freewheeling FM system? We can pass all the laws on ethics and behaviors we want, but if they aren’t enforced then they are ineffective and useless. Like it or not, Law requires Government. The question is the trade off between the two. To have less Government you have to trust in human nature (HA!); those who advocate more Government see the economy as an animal to be managed lest it get out of control.

Communism and pollution: the Communist ‘planned’ economy produced massive pollution because it didn’t value any form of environmental protection. This does not mean that planned economies can’t do this, only that the government in the former USSR and Eastern Block countries didn’t. And, keep in mind that the USA has had its share of environmental disasters (Love Canal, Three Mile Island, all of Northwest Indiana, the Saginaw River that had a nasty habit of spontaneously bursting into flame, dead estuaries of the Delaware River, and Lake Erie which was dead by the 1960s) and chronic problems (sucking aquifers dry, horrendous air pollution that is getting worse in Houston, and slightly better in LA). Those little environmental problems and disasters happened in the USA under our enlightened FM system. So, why is the economic system as formulated in the West and adopted by the industrialized world seen as environmentally ‘better’, and why is the USA cleaning up its act (slowly, oh so slowly)? Answer: because we’re willing to invest some of the riches of our economy to do so. The Communists in the USSR didn’t, and their people will pay the price for a long, long time.

Again, the point is that the government (and the laws it chooses to enact and enforce), not the economic system (which is simply a vehicle or mechanism), defines the level of protection of the environment for its citizens.

Hydro

While I agree with your main point, I'd like to also point out that the FM economies of the West produced a lot more wealth (which was the whole point of the exercise) for the amount of pollution produced than the planned economies of the former Soviet Union etc. Efficiency is good, even in ways that may not have been intended.