NationStates Jolt Archive

please, you know who you are, please do not post here. this is going to be an intelligent, sensible discussion regarding the comparative economic strength of the WBO/SATO and the CACE. i'm interested in this since it came up in the Skargarden 'sale' bit, and also re: the TPB and how the CACE will value an international currency.

so anyway, TVC, let me begin.

my argument is four fold. i intend to show the following things:

1) the CACE has a large population than the WBO. well actually i just want the WBO to post a census like the CACE does. found here (http://redfrenzy.com/cace_db.php). current population: 38.8 billion.

2) the CACE economies are more stable, efficient and capable of long term capital growth.

3) non-profit economies are the only economies capable of long term sustainable growth, an important issue in a world with increasingly scarce resources.

4) the CACE markets are not as saturated as WBO/SATO markets, and thus provide more opportunities for entrepreneurship.

if you like we can also move onto sociology but for now i'd like to stick to the economic side of the issue. i will post my first arguments either tonight or tomorrow, have a lot of work to do so time could be an issue for me tonight.

toodles.

Thanks for inviting me. As for sociology, I think that if we go into that, that we would soon end up discussing the motivating effects of ideology on workers, so we'll stick to the economic side as much as possible, or so I hope to do.

Now, you should know that I am not a member of the WBO. I am member and founder of the Corporate Coalition though, as well as SATO member. So the only point that I cannot discuss with you is the first one. Numbers 2, 3 and 4 are of course open to discussion.

I'm putting a few pointers here, and when you make your first argument I will start elaborating them.

1) The motivating effect of monetary means, as well as the demotivating effect of working without compensation for effort.

2) CACE economies will have less innovation, higher costs and technological advancements than capitalist ones.

3) CACE economies will adapt slowly to new circumstances, when compared to capitalist ones.

4) The tendency of CACE to lock itself off from the rest of the world, which eventually isolates them from new developments, international markets and radical changes. (closely related to 2 and 3)

Also, seeing your 3rd point, I suggest we limit the discussion to modern era economies, e.g. not including space faring nations.

'scuse me, but what is the WBO? CACE? SATO?

World Business Organization. Coalition of Anti-Capitalistic Economies. South Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The two first organizations have opposing ideologies, while SATO is a separate military alliance. It tends to be mentioned with the other two involved because many members of WBO happens to be members of SATO and vice versa.. and the fact that CACE treats WBO and SATO as one and the same.

I would like to see some facts presented before I bother to reply to the points put forth by SeOCC. As it stands it doesn't seem to be worth my limited time.

Thanks for inviting me. As for sociology, I think that if we go into that, that we would soon end up discussing the motivating effects of ideology on workers, so we'll stick to the economic side as much as possible, or so I hope to do.

i think you'd actually find that i agree with Kists regarding this point; people work for greed. if you dig through the CACE forums you can probably find a fair number of bits where i go head to head with the hardcore Socialists in the group re: a lot of this stuff.

Now, you should know that I am not a member of the WBO. I am member and founder of the Corporate Coalition though, as well as SATO member. So the only point that I cannot discuss with you is the first one. Numbers 2, 3 and 4 are of course open to discussion.

even if you were i woudln't expect you to answer since you'd have to count it all up; i put i there just as an official call for a census.

1) The motivating effect of monetary means, as well as the demotivating effect of working without compensation for effort.

prelude to my argument i'll respond quickly then follow up later. one thing about the CACE is that there is a HUGE diversity of economic forms. as i love saying, there are only one or two actual communists in the group. there is a majority of 'Socialists,' but this is only true because Socialism is as all-encompassing as KSM.

i agree that you need to pay people more to get them to do hard or shitty jobs; people must be remunerated for their disutility, and this is is a major question for real thinkers in this camp. how do you do this? however, you'll find that i agree with you on this point and i think most CACE members do as well; i speak from impression, so they're free to tell me i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure that doctors get more than janitors is a vast majority of CACE economies.

2) CACE economies will have less innovation, higher costs and technological advancements than capitalist ones.

i'm interested to hear how you back this one up. less innovation i understand, though i intend to disprove that it is endemic to planned economies, but higher costs i'm not sure how you'll prove. and for tech advancements, i think we should call it on account of no good evidence since we have only one idiosyncratic contest between the US/EEC and CMEA. if you insist, though, i've got some good capital investment data that will blow your socks off.

3) CACE economies will adapt slowly to new circumstances, when compared to capitalist ones.

call this one on account of no argument; if you can find Xanthal's thread where he describes his economy you'll notice i argue that he should remove the bit about his economy adapting rapidly. i gave him suggestions to deal with his inefficiencies but it's still a fact: planned economies are slower to react than market economies. of course this comes at a huge price to the market economies (massive productive inefficiency) but that's not the issue here.

4) The tendency of CACE to lock itself off from the rest of the world, which eventually isolates them from new developments, international markets and radical changes. (closely related to 2 and 3)

uh... okay. this one is weird since i seems a moot point when the CACE has almost seven times to population of RL earth. i'd argue we make as many new development and radical changes are anyone (Argent Loop?) but whatever, i'm not so concerned with this aspect.

Also, seeing your 3rd point, I suggest we limit the discussion to modern era economies, e.g. not including space faring nations.

agreed. i have some very marked opinions on space (i saw on Discovery that the asteroid belt actually has very few mineral resources worth mining) and i don't see it as a savior. assuming we're stuck on earth, planning for worst case, is best.

would like to see some facts presented before I bother to reply to the points put forth by SeOCC. As it stands it doesn't seem to be worth my limited time.

which works out well since you're not invited.

post this and now i begin.

2) the CACE economies are more stable, efficient and capable of long term capital growth.

three points here, the first should be fairly easy and uncontested. market economies are extremely unstable and are subect to Kondratyev waves, roughly sixty year cycles of boom and bust. i'm not a temporal determinist so i don't ascribe to the strict year marks like some hardliners do, but all market economes do follow the basic pattern and the basic year marks. it's really eerie too, like US presidents getting whacked every 20 years.

the point is that planned economies can maintain constant growth without busts. the methods vary, but understanding why really goes to understanding how market economies work. simply, because prices are set on the market, and as something is valued and bought it both becomes more demanded and in smaller supply. (note: i do not ascribe to the linear theories of S&D but in this example the theory works, basically). you'll often hear economists talk about 'market corrections.' this is code for downturn or recession.

how do recessions start? the answer is actually unexpected, and as is often the case, can be found in Marx. the declining rate of profit is a basic fact in Kist economies, driven by competition and the equalization of technology and, in recent years, intellectual property. if you study the economic data, esp. corporate earnings, you'll find that Marx was exactly right. let's take a look at stagflation to see why.

stagflation had actually nothing to do with oil; oil created the economic crisis of the early 80's when nations who had bet on petro-dollars saw their oil become less valuable (ahem, Mexico). stagflation was created because of what is known as the Capital-Labor accord. during this time labor across the 1st world struck a deal with Capital Owners; you give us consistent raises, we won't strike or ask for more. this is known as Fordism for obvious reasons.

the problem was that profits started to fall. Fordism was based on a very neat but impossible theory: that paying your workers more so they have the cash to buy your goods will net you profits. this is an excellent motivating factor, and is key to a healthy long term economy, but it cannot be profitable in the long term because in order for workers to continue to have excess cash to buy your products the increse in their share of production must outpace inflation.

inflation, in actual economic terms, is the best way to measure actual productive growth in a market economy. stock markets have nothing to do with production, and 'growth' figures are actually profit figures since they measure GDP, not physical goods. inflation measures the increased movement of money and the devaluation that comes with that movement. if this doesn't make sense i'll explain banking and the difference between money and currency and it will.

so as Fordism continues workers are claiming greaters shares of production, and because economics is a zero sum game, that means someone was losing money. that someone was profits.

when a corporation becomes unprofitable it cuts costs. if you've seen a production possibilities curve you'll know what i'm talking about when i say that a corporation has several stages of profitability. if they aren't profitable at a certain stage, say x monthly productoin with y workers, they either scale up to x+1 and y+1 or scale down to x-1 and y-1. most corporations scale down and lay people off; others scale up, usually through mergers. this is what is going on when you see a company 'on the rocks' getting bought out. the larger company is merging productive assets with the smaller once making it x+1.

the current b-phase began in 1973, which is when corporations became truly unprofitable and had to start drastic measures. labor is the single biggest short term expense of any corporation and so is always the first to go. fewere workers means less buying power, meaning fewer goods can be sold meaning fewer good can be produced, meaning people have to get laid off. this continues until the economy settles at a point it can live with (market correction). this is often a point with high umemployment and low buying power for workers.

this happens every b-phase. EVERY ONE. booms and busts are endemic to KSM, they must happen. Kist economists argue that this is fine because in the long term the economy remains at equilibrium. however, George Soros, of all people, proved that equilibrium cannot exist. unfortuntaely Soros is a Jew (or known as one) and so i could not bring his book into the KSA with me, but i'm sure you can find a copy of 'The Crisis of Global Capitalism' somewhere about. find his section on equilibrium and read to your heart's content.

basically, to sum up the argument, economics is non-linear, and therefore does not tend towards equilibrium, and is a reflexive system, meaning that it reinforces its own behavior. currencies that are valued will continue to gain value because people buy them, increasing their value, making people want to buy them more. this is also endemic to KSM. the point is that market correction is a total myth. the tendency towards equilibrium is based on a 19th century ASSUMPTION that has never been proven but, in fact, disproven several times. this is why Samir Amin revered to 'pure economics' as to social science as parapsychology is to real science. it can be used to prove any thesis because it does not use actual evidence.

now what's interesting is that when you remove the market from the equation you change the picture dramatically. take a gander at this graph (nicked from a thing i did a while back, citation: 'Socialist Planning, by Michael Ellman, pg 301):

http://www.thegrimproject.net/CliffNotes/growthratetable.jpg

notice that the CMEA has no negative growth. though the USSR did cook their books, Ellman goes on to show that the actual growth rates were lower but remained positive and matched the growth of the EEC over that time. conclusion: planned economies achieve the same ends without the unnecessarily wasteful boom and bust of a market economy.

i'll let that digest, and move onto the long term growth next.

A short comment for now on your line of reasoning:

You are entirely correct in saying that the market of capitalist nations and communities is subject to conjunctural changes. So I will not argue against that part of your reasoning. However, your statement is that "the CACE economies are more stable, efficient and capable of long term capital growth". I would like to give some comments on the three elements of that sentence:

Stability

As you said, removing the market from the equation gives you increased stability. Since prices are set at a certain level, no fluctuations in prices occur, which is very logical. However, situations change. Blame it on bad harvests, the weather, mistakes or cosmic coincidence, but at some point, the price needs adjusting.

Now as you said, a capitalist economy will have an unstable, yet 'flowing' price, which (most of the time) gradually changes over time, and (most important) can be predicted unto some point. However, when a communist economy alters a price, the whole system must adapt to an unexpected development. I am basing this on the writings of Mary Hatch, an authority on management literature, for what it is worth.

Her point is that a capitalist nation will (and I am generalizing here) experience a continuous amount of instability in its system, while a communist economy experiences a sudden radical change every so many years (and is stable the rest of the time). She uses a metaphor of a wave compared to stairs, I believe.

So the question is: what would you prefer? Continuous and (partially) predictable change, or sudden adaptions? Clearly, one would not want to choose the latter, since the entire system would need reengineering. A changing system is more stable, in the sense that no expected events occur. I am not saying that this does not happen at all, merely that it is the flow of prices that normally would occur.

Efficient

Let me be short here: Competition forces companies to be as efficient as possible, and continuously monitor and improve efficiency in order to keep or ascend to a leading position in the market. Also, the law of supply and demand states that multiple suppliers that compete with each other, give the demand side the chance to buy the very best product at a lower price than usual (due to competition).

Long term capital growth

I am confused. Do you mean capital as in monetary funds, or as in machinery and equipment? Please elaborate, since working with English terminology is somewhat complicated for me.

---

Some extra remarks:

I agree with you Fordism is a nice idea, but won't work. Fordism disregards the dynamics of the environment. It completely disregards changing demands of governments, suppliers and clients, and forms a completely closed system. Any company designed in such manner is bound to fail in the present time. Myself, I would prefer outsourcing, virtual organizations and networks to realize a succeful capitalist economy.

please, you know who you are, please do not post here. this is going to be an intelligent, sensible discussion regarding the comparative economic strength of the WBO/SATO and the CACE. i'm interested in this since it came up in the Skargarden 'sale' bit, and also re: the TPB and how the CACE will value an international currency.

so anyway, TVC, let me begin.

my argument is four fold. i intend to show the following things:

1) the CACE has a large population than the WBO. well actually i just want the WBO to post a census like the CACE does. found here (http://redfrenzy.com/cace_db.php). current population: 38.8 billion.

2) the CACE economies are more stable, efficient and capable of long term capital growth.

3) non-profit economies are the only economies capable of long term sustainable growth, an important issue in a world with increasingly scarce resources.

4) the CACE markets are not as saturated as WBO/SATO markets, and thus provide more opportunities for entrepreneurship.

if you like we can also move onto sociology but for now i'd like to stick to the economic side of the issue. i will post my first arguments either tonight or tomorrow, have a lot of work to do so time could be an issue for me tonight.

toodles.

[OOC: You know, this is silly. Not what you say - but why you say it. Think about it. SATO is closely linked to the WBO, yes? But are all the SATO members in the WBO? Are all SATO members even capitalist?

No.

EOTED, for example, has a fairly similar economy to SeOCC and other CACE nations - far more sophisticated and complicated, I might add, in all likelihood, but very similar in basis and ideal.

Yet EOTED trades with both capitalist and socialist economies. Hmmm.

Oh yes... and the EOTED economy is probably both more efficient and more stable than any CACE economy you care to mention; the only downside of the current EOTED economic system is extremely limited economic growth. But going by game-engine stats, the core EOTED economy has been stable at Frightening for eleven months. That's pretty stable.]

[OOC: You know, this is silly. Not what you say - but why you say it. Think about it. SATO is closely linked to the WBO, yes? But are all the SATO members in the WBO? Are all SATO members even capitalist?

No.


This isn't my thread, but in the interests of preventing a good discussion from being bogged down in an argument on whether SATO and The WBO are effectively the same organization, perhaps it can be aggreed that any OOC comments refer to capitalist versus non-capitalist economies, and IC references should predominantly refer to the WBO versus CACE?

As for the debate itself, at this point I would only like to address the issue of reward, and reaffirm Seocc's belief, on behalf of myself as a CACE member and RL socialist, that I don't expect a dctor and a janitor to be rewarded equally. My disgareement with the capitalist system would be in the differing degrees of reward offered to those who fullfill different roles.

We also come down to the basic question of how to value a role. The market driven economy is likely to value those who generate wealth, whilst other economies may determine that the value to society should be the determining factor. The reality, however, is that most economies probably fall somewhere in between. Most can agree that the doctor is valuable enough to offer significant rewards (even within public health systems which are not profit driven), but it becomes less clear when we make comparative valuations of, say, nurses and IT professionals. (I speak as an IT professional who earns more than the (many) nurses I know and on many levels finds it hard to justify. I do know a few doctors as well,a dn they all drive better cars than me, so they're getting no sympathy.)

I would say that it's farily incontovertable that people need motivations to work productively, and that evidence, as well as common sense, suggests that money is a good motivator. Where I have doubts is in the extreme differences in wages that market economies often produce, and by how much peoples are motivated by the possibility of extreme wealth.

And even though I accept that wealth can have trickle down effect , it doesnlt automatically follow. Take the example of Glasgow during the height of the British Empire: the engine house of the Empire, it's iron, steel, and shipbuilding industries (the Clyde was producing one fifth of the world's shipping tonnage) were producing almost a third of the Britains total output, and the company of Cotes-Paton in nearby Paisley had almost 80 percent of the world market in cotton-thread production, and yet the average Glaswegian who supplied the labour for these industries lived in abject poverty (and I mean that even in comparison to the rest of working class Britain and Europe, not relative to today). (citation: 'The Scottish Enlightenment', page 394)

I originally meant to write a short sentence saying that I don't actually believe that everyone should neccessarily earn the same, and it became an explanation of why I belive it. How narrow the gap between the top and bottom whould be however, I don't claim to know. I'm just not happy with the market making that descision, and I know that concentrating wealth in a few hands does not automatically leads to improvements for the rest of us.

TAG

~A

#tag#

I am not well versed in the academic aspects of economics, being a philosopher by profession and a metaphysician at that, so I'm quite interested in this discussion; I'll be following closely, and I hope you won't mind an occasional question from a nonce like me.

Sorry, but why in the hell would you want to write an essay for a god damned game?

Because he's actually interested in the topic, IRL, and interested in talking with someone on the other side, as it were, who will engage in civil debate.

I would ask pot-shot-takers politely to can it. Thank you.

#tag#

I am not well versed in the academic aspects of economics, being a philosopher by profession

So was Adam Smith, so what the hell, wire in :wink:

Actually, so was Marx. At least, that's how these people saw themselves.

Here's my problem with CACE econmies; you base your prosperity largely on answering the 'foreign imports' issue with raising import duty, since that has no impact on civil rights or political freedoms.

But you don't RP this.

3. Trade will not be conducted on monetary grounds. CACE members will form industrial partnerships, where each nation provides for other what is needed in exchange for what they need.

In other words, your economies in-game reflect the effect of high import duties you don't assess on your bloc's trade [because that's impossible] nor trade from outside your bloc [because you don't do that at the moment].

And to those who have lost posts: Less with the flaming, and stay on topic.

Right now, I have little to add, consider this an elaborate tag.

The only thing I do wish to add is that SeOCC's chart, once again, ignores the effects of the gulags.

Of course, the last time I agrued this (with several references, I might add), he decided to attack my use of Google.

And, if anyone recalls, I stated at that point that I was done arguing such things, as there's no real rebuttal to "Your sources contradict me, so I'll ignore them." I stand by that. As I said, consider this a long-winded tag.

GMC> Are you referring to the tariffs issue? If so, I can tell you that the USFS has never chosen - nor had - such an issue, our economic strength comes mainly from de-regulation, i.e. highly developed worker's democracy in production, planning and administration, as well as the abolishment of private ownership in order to help the entirety of the people rather than the privileged few.

The only 'economy-uppers' I have ever chosen is the outlaw capitalism/de-regulate issue, and the seize gold finds issue. Since private enterprise is still outlawed (of course because of limiting 'economic freedom' through other issues), I think that the RP of our economy is realistic in relation to the game mechanics.

Here's my problem with CACE econmies; you base your prosperity largely on answering the 'foreign imports' issue with raising import duty, since that has no impact on civil rights or political freedoms.

But you don't RP this.

3. Trade will not be conducted on monetary grounds. CACE members will form industrial partnerships, where each nation provides for other what is needed in exchange for what they need.

In other words, your economies in-game reflect the effect of high import duties you don't assess on your bloc's trade [because that's impossible] nor trade from outside your bloc [because you don't do that at the moment].

And to those who have lost posts: Less with the flaming, and stay on topic.

Ok, a reasonable point, but based on a false premise. The main issue that , I believe, is used to boost economies is the government subsidy option and not the raising of tariffs. If other CACE members have a different experience, then they can can say so.

I interpret the "government subsidy" issue as being the reinvestment of profit. The government owns the industry, and continually reinvests the profits (or at least some of them - as some no doubt make their way into the public purse). However, there's a balancing act required but I (and the rest of CACE I believe) do choose the cuddly issues that reduce the economy. In my mind Celdonia can only pay for the welfare programs because of our economic strength.

A while ago, I'd been dismissing a few of of the "social" issues, because I was protecting the economy (not all of them mind, just some) and it mean thtat I slipped down the UN rankings for equality and the like so I made an IC post, on the CACE forums, about rising dissatisfaction with government policy, because I wanted to RP something that might lead to a change of policy and a scaling down of the economy. As it happened though, the rankings got a bit better and other events drew my attention away from the idea. I do think though, within the confines of the game, we do try to RP our economies as well as we can.

The only thing I do wish to add is that SeOCC's chart, once again, ignores the effects of the gulags.

and your economies ignore the need for KSM to have masses of slave wage sweatshop laborers to support your economies. acknowledge that.

Of course, the last time I agrued this (with several references, I might add), he decided to attack my use of Google.

what i said was that you shouldn't expect me to be impressed with sources gathered off of google, which searches webpages where anyone can say anything.

and i asked my guys when i realized you weren't listening to me and they weren't impressed with your argument either. as you keep forgetting, there is an entire bloc of the left that spends all their free time discrediting the soviet model and these guys are among them. their response was near to mine: the effects of the gulag workforce was relatively negligible when compared with the heavy industry of Soviet laborers. i stopped arguing because it was clear you had no arguments of your own, just things i was supposed to read, and you could not answer my arguments re: sweatshops.

GMC: you should be the first to admit that these issues are open to interpretation. the tarriff issue can easily be interpreted and the government subsidizing local industries rather than import from other CACE nations.

and a point of information: the CACE does not pay each other for goods, we just give them. therefore it's IMPOSSIBLE to have tarriffs since we are in a non-monied international production alliance.

and you over-generalize when you say our prosperity is largely based on the tarriff issue. i hardly ever get it; my prosperity is based on workers being fired and corporates getting to donate to election funds. and baseball now, go Mariners! the CACE has a very diverse method of upping the economy, and the slow progress of many reflects the lack of + economy issues they get.

OOC:Intresting, by the way SeOCC. I am still waiting for you to post in my rules for a Sucessful Feudal monarchy thread.

hehehe, writing it now.

Good, I been waiting for some serious critism of it.

[OOC: I would just like to point out that I agree with socialist economic ideals, and that the EOTED economic system is largely based on those ideals. And exhaustively RPd, at that.]

3) non-profit economies are the only economies capable of long term sustainable growth, an important issue in a world with increasingly scarce resources.

Random problem: granted, NS-world has very, very odd resource distribution, but nobody's ever made any categoric and globally-accepted [or anything like it] statement that we're running out of resources.

Random problem: granted, NS-world has very, very odd resource distribution, but nobody's ever made any categoric and globally-accepted [or anything like it] statement that we're running out of resources.

i know i know i know, my point was that realistically, and in real life, resources are scarce. and frankly i think people's willingness not to RP scarcity in their own countries (SeOCC lacks plenty of stuff) is just another sign of lazy RP. but anyway, watch for the TPB! the CACE may just create scarcity in our alliance!

now, for the actual post:

ah, finally, to the post i wanted to reply to.

StabilitySince prices are set at a certain level, no fluctuations in prices occur, which is very logical.

a quick clarification: i don't measure the economy with money. being a good anti-capitalist i see the stuff as a total fiction, and even more so with how the banks move money and currency. when i refer to stability i refer to actual physical output and real standard of living.

that said, yes the Soviets had some pricing crisis's, my favorite being when bread was priced cheaper then wheat in Poland, but if you study the Soviet system you'll see that had nothing to do with planned economies and everything to do with command economies.

a quick point: the US economy is planned. how so? corporations plan production for five years from now, plan investment, capital expenditures etc etc. what the US has is a market economy for determining production, but don't think it's not planned just the same. the difference is that it's not 'rationally' planned but instead planned after market forces.

my point is that KSM has proved planning works, and that we just need to adapt how we organize the economy to make it work without market determinism. also note that i argue for a planned ex post economy, where consumer input (ahem, a market) modifies production plans, something the Soviets lacked. i am being quite honest when i say this system has never been tried, though i have data to show that it would work. but back to the point.

re: Ms. Hatch, it's possible to have a planned economy without a board dictating prices, if for instance those prices were measured by opportunity cost of production. this would be fairly simple to compute, since every corporation in the world does so, and would be adjustable every month or even week, whenever something changed. her point is well made re: the command economies of the USSR, but is not a broad attack against all non-capitalism.

to me stability and efficiency are intrinsically linked. let me return to the chart i posted and the conclusion i assume you've accepted since you didn't contest it, that overall growth rates were the same for CMEA and EEC nations between 1961 and 1976. if total growth were the same, that their economies increased by the same amount, it's also clear that the EEC, and capitalist economies in general, used more resources to achieve that growth. why? because KSM is always in a cycle of boom and bust, ahem Mr. Kondratyev (or Kondratieff, i realized if you wanted to look him up you'd need both spellings).

the reason i posted that long boring story about stagflation was to show how KSM burns out in the a-phase; considering that, in practical terms, KSM achieves either 0 or net negative growth during the b-phase that means they have to grow twice as fast as a planned economy (this is supported by the graph, when you adjust the stats for being cooked). having burnt themselves out then go through 25-30 years of downturn, and then start all over again.

this kind of economic model is just plain wasteful, in every way. it wastes resources on inefficient production (see a production possiblities graph to see why when you maximize one thing you lose another), it wastes capital in the b-phase since it's being unused, it wastes labor in the b-phase by leaving the newly unemployed without work, it requies the entire system work on a binge-purge model, which is insane. a planned economy, which has no boom or bust, can proceed a constant rate, providing constant use of capital and constant employment.

this makes it more stable, and thus more efficient, since it won't lose or waste resources in binges.

Efficient

Let me be short here: Competition forces companies to be as efficient as possible, and continuously monitor and improve efficiency in order to keep or ascend to a leading position in the market. Also, the law of supply and demand states that multiple suppliers that compete with each other, give the demand side the chance to buy the very best product at a lower price than usual (due to competition).

well you'll notice that i said i don't believe in supply and demand, which i don't. nor will you find a chaos theorist who does, or many theoretical mathematicians, since the economy is a non-linear equation. your latter argument would hold IF S&D weren't a liberal assumption rather than an actual fact. you should be able to look around and see that it doesn't apply: expensive things like computer software and nike shoes are in abundance, yet prices are not dropping. time removes value, not abundance, in this case.

and as for the simply fallacious argument that you get the best product at a lower price: McDonalds. crappy food, over priced. nuff said.

also, you'll notice i don't disagree that competition is important. in both my NS and RL theories i have competing plans that are often carried out simoultaenously, just like real firms. this is very possible without a market DICTATING production by having a market ADJUST production; this is what ex post means. so really, i can't see how efficiency is a problem for all non-capitalism; it was a problem for the Soviets, but then what wasn't? those problems were created by a hegemonic central committee hell bent on ex ante planning, unncessary capital development, protecting themselves from the US (please recall that US did launch an invasion of the USSR in the years after the revolution, so they weren't pulling it out of their asses), and of course, Stalin. the USSR does not equal all other non-capitalist theories.

Long term capital growth

I am confused. Do you mean capital as in monetary funds, or as in machinery and equipment? Please elaborate, since working with English terminology is somewhat complicated for me.

capital, as defined and used here, is anything that can reproduce its own value. money is not capital, if you have a big pile of money it does not grow on its own. factory machines are capital, they can produce stuff that is worth more than itself. to many interpretations land is also capital if you can farm it. as i am a Marxist the self reproducing value definition is important, since it ties into the labor theory of value, but you get the point.

Myself, I would prefer outsourcing, virtual organizations and networks to realize a succeful capitalist economy.

welcome to Post-Fordism.

The only thing I do wish to add is that SeOCC's chart, once again, ignores the effects of the gulags.

and your economies ignore the need for KSM to have masses of slave wage sweatshop laborers to support your economies. acknowledge that.

Um, I have.

Remember Mr. Duffy? The man who I used to exploit a new nation by building factories with "great" wages in a 3rd World Country? Led directly to your thread in II about developing economies.

Also, I make frequent mention of the fact that the Hack is so specialized that it has to import almost everything. I have little to no production. Christ, look at my nation title. "Semi-Autonomous Technocratic Oligarchy". In case you missed it, I'm a protectorate of GMC. I'd say I've acknowledged the weaknesses of my country.

I even take into account non-sense stats like "weather", and my nation being described as a wasteland. There's a reason so many people live in Chiba City.

"There is no government in the normal sense the word;" Gee, notice my lack of ministries? Notice how I have very few named offices or government officials? Wow... I role play that too.

"billions of chits are being poured into a space program" Haven't worked on it lately, but that's how I'm funding my Mercury project.

And to bring it around to your complaints about me ignoring my need for third world labor: "the government extracts trade concessions from poor nations in exchange for humanitarian aid."

So tell me Mr. "Political Freedoms: Good", when are you having open elections?

[my economy comes from] corporates getting to donate to election funds.

Or do you not role-play your nation properly?

Remember Mr. Duffy? The man who I used to exploit a new nation by building factories with "great" wages in a 3rd World Country? Led directly to your thread in II about developing economies.

my point is that you can't rail on gulag labor when KSM requires slave wage labor to survive. anyone with credibilty in the non-Kist community recognizes the USSR as state capitalism with only a tertiary relationship to communism in any real sense.

So tell me Mr. "Political Freedoms: Good", when are you having open elections?

just as i think it's legit to pick the uranium mining issue and say you're actually mining iron, my interpretation of this issue is that economic planners get a bigger say in decision making in the country. simple. as for elections, there are elections every year for local arcology councils. i stated way way way back when, and these councils plug into the MSA and MoP and give direct input regarding how people feel to the Ministries.

and MGH, though we've had good talks in the past, if you're just going to come in here to try to make fun of me, start another thread. if you have on topic comments or arguments regarding the economic structures used by the WBO/SATO and the CACE then make them and quit obsessing about me.

Remember Mr. Duffy? The man who I used to exploit a new nation by building factories with "great" wages in a 3rd World Country? Led directly to your thread in II about developing economies.

my point is that you can't rail on gulag labor when KSM requires slave wage labor to survive. anyone with credibilty in the non-Kist community recognizes the USSR as state capitalism with only a tertiary relationship to communism in any real sense.

You may forgive me for recognising the 'die hard' capitalism of the 19th century not as 'true' capitalism. True capitalism, my friend, is of course the humanistic system called 'social market economy'.

Thank you.

~ Ministry for international mockery, DA

my point is that you can't rail on gulag labor when KSM requires slave wage labor to survive. anyone with credibilty in the non-Kist community recognizes the USSR as state capitalism with only a tertiary relationship to communism in any real sense.

Funny, I already addressed this by saying that I use 3rd world "slave" labor, and import almost everything...


and MGH, though we've had good talks in the past, if you're just going to come in here to try to make fun of me, start another thread. if you have on topic comments or arguments regarding the economic structures used by the WBO/SATO and the CACE then make them and quit obsessing about me.

Fine, fine. You said that us "Kists" don't roleplay our nations properly, to which I responded by showing that I do, while your RP is seemingly lacking.

But, of course, it's my fault for responding.

bumb for TVC.

bizzle for the shizzle and gizzle.