NationStates Jolt Archive

The Federal Beuro of Statistics [Biotopia] has released the following report for international circulation as part of the monthly review between the CACE Bloc and outstanding international economic, political and social units within the Nation-Statesverse.

***CACE***
Celdonia is ranked 1st in the region and 97th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

Germanicapan2 is ranked 4th in the region and 1,124th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

Seocc is ranked 2nd in the region and 5,938th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

Free Socialism is ranked 11th in the region and 11,321st in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

Biotopia is ranked 2nd in the region and 11,965th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

Xikuang is ranked 19th in the region and 19,145th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

***ROW[Rest of World]***
Ma-tek is ranked 1st in the region and 294th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

Ruhr is ranked 2nd in the region and 607th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

Iraqstan is ranked 1st in the region and 893rd in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies

Menelmacar is ranked 7th in the region and 2,988th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

Der Angst is ranked 5th in the region and 3,142nd in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

Knootoss is ranked 14th in the region and 6,616th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

…Now all we have to worry about is those pesky Wombats getting in the way…

Is "Rest of the World" code for "that SATO scum"? Or are the other nations randomly chosen. :P

Oh, well I guess I should be proud at being considered an

"outstanding international economic, political and social unit"

Wazzu is ranked 6th in the region and 122nd in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies...and yet not even an honorable mention???

*sigh*

New York and Jersey is ranked 2nd in the region and 872nd in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

Wazzu is ranked 6th in the region and 122nd in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies...and yet not even an honorable mention???

*sigh*

You are clearly not a member of the secret "Rest Of the World" alliance. :roll:

All in good spirit...

Knootoss, you shall be silent except when spoken to....

That said in my booming God-like voice i htink i might say good night and keep up the posting. Maybe i'll start playing favourite with these lists, then agains who says i didn't already start?

OOC: you will nevah silence the Dutchman! Muhahahahaha!

Your one billion to my +800million isn't that bad. I'm sure we could make enough radios so we can turn up the volume lest you try and talk out of line...

"SHUBBYDOO DO-DO WA-WA..."

Hah! I'm doing better then some of those nations in Fastest Growing Economies:

Pro Capitalists is ranked 1st in the region and 4,695th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

My Economy is 'Frightening' and I'm an 'Inoffensive Centrist Democracy'

Beat that :P

Let's not forget that boasting aobut how quickly your ecnomy is growing is like boasting that your ship is sinking the fastest.

Dr_Twist is ranked 2nd in the region and 1,265th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies

_Eridu_ has the fastest growing economy in all of Mesopotamia_.

Fyreheart is ranked 2nd in the region and 2,399th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

Floating World is ranked 5th in the region and 1,863rd in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies. It's all due to the wise stewardship of our new government, the Erotic Bank.

Tappee is 1,237th in the world and first in the region. not sure what I've been doing, whatever it is it must be right. :D

Rudolfensia is the fastest growing economy in the San Gabriel Valley.
what does that mean?

Let's not forget that boasting aobut how quickly your ecnomy is growing is like boasting that your ship is sinking the fastest.

'Celdonia is 97th!'

*Pop*

*Gurgling sounds*

'Ohh, the cork's come out!'

'Stop it, before Celdonia flows away!'

'Don't worry, there's still ten gallons of Celdonia left!'

Beth Gellert is ranked 3rd in the region and 295th in the world for Fastest-Growing Economies.

*Comrade Igo does the long-live-Eastern-European-socialist-economics dance*

a note regarding growth: it's necessary. if you're not growing it means the quality of life in your nation is sinking or stagnant, and in people's eyes the latter is the former. also, since it seems we can't stop population growth in this game (currseesss) growth is necessary just to keep up with your people's demands.

growth puts, of course, a strain on the environment, but i'm going to ignore that one because there's no way for us to stop population growth (unlike in the real world, where industralized nations seem to do it naturally).

and a lot of growth is good if you've got sectors that need to be expanded into. for instance, if Celdonia (with a very rapidly expanding economy) was doing a massive expansion of internal infrastructure (for instance, replacing all old tvs with new digital ones), then the growth would not be bad, since it is replacing old machines, not adding new ones. if he were, however, building Tamagochis, it might cause a problem. why? because if you're building new tv's you're using resourcs already alotted to tv production. if you're building something new, well it's a zero sum game, so something gets their resources skimmed.

or, if Celdonia is expanding into a sector that is needed, for instance building a military base in SeOCC (cofcof), then growth is good, because it serves a specific aim. if the sector was, however, maybe not so important, like building a new theme park right next door to another theme park, you can expect to get a low return (however you count it) on your investment.

now because Celdonia is a planned economy, sorry C but i have to say it, you'd want to downgrade his growth several thousand slots. why? simple: planned economies take longer to grow because they don't have the mass redundancy of multiple capital enterprises. just like we say that Kist rankings for IT should be downgraded to match our (or ours upgraded) because Kists produce lost of useless stuff (like a million unnecessary iterations of Windows and Office) that contributes to the size of the sector but not any real value, a planned economy might 'grow' very quickly, but see less material increase than a capitalist one.

planned economies are all about slow and steady wins the race.

but yes, C has a problem in that he has to constantly find new capital sinks to put production into. in order to keep people employed he has to expand into new sectors, or create more jobs in current sectors by expanding them. this gets very hard after a while because, well, look at you house. how much more stuff do you want? this is why modern firms build their stuff to break; quite literally they don't make them like they used to. the life expectancy for a car used to be over 30 years, now it's less than 10 before people buy a new one. this is why i buy used cars from private buyers; invest a thousand in brakes, tires and synthetic oil treatments and 80k miles is nothing.

so anyway, that's my take on it, enjoy.

Your whole theory is, of course, based on the assumption that government planners are somehow inherently "smarter" or "better" übermenschen then people worker the private sector. :roll:

Or to put in a little slogan:
Why trust men to govern over others when you do not even trust them to govern themselves?

Wel... that's just my take on it.

A bit offtopic
Actually, before you reply on this already-discussed topic I so have a small intellectual request for you, if that can be arranged. I've actually been facinated by your whole lecture series. Whatever you may think of you I rate you as in intelligent person. (Annoying, yes, but intelligent nevertheless)

So far, what I have heard from you are mainly macrosociological and macroeconomical theories. You describe systems, constructs, etc.

From a sociological point of view there is this (Weberian) thought that every social construct or "macro" theory should be brought back to the capacity of individuals interacting with eachother. What I'd love to see in one of your lecture series is a description of this "ground level" in SeOCC. How do people interact with eachother? How is this different from other society types?

It appears that your system has some things in common with the Knootian welfare state for example: you don't have complete income equality but people do get a decent living. Does this mean they go on "welfare" if they are "fired"? Does the state determine what jobs they get or can people choose?

I am curious because honestly my conception of your "anticapitalist post-ex planned corporate technocracy" is a bit, well, abstract. Your survey showed this also: people know very little about SeOCC culture.

Double post.
*refers to previous page*

NS had the shites with me and i lost my post so to put down key points:

*Unlimited growth must mean unl;imited resources [land for cities and food, minerals, energy and technology
*Thus ubertech and space antions should not be ignored [but i still will not happily play wtih you].
*Unlimited growth may not destroy the green movement but could inspire the development of Green Ecologism in practical terms
*would a limitless world render the zero sum graph void?

My take on the horrendously large Celdonian economy is that it is actually an economy that is somewhat out of control.

There is continual investment in infrastructure, health, education, etc..but there's probably too much crap being produced as well. There has been a huge increase in military spending as well.

That said, I've recently funded race tracks, baseball (or football - soccer to the Americans - as I'm interpreting it) and taken in loads of refugees. Nothing seems to make much difference, although I think I was in the 80s last time this report was produced. Even the Labour Unions proposal went pretty much unnoticed by economists.

Anyway, it's too much fun having a bigger economy than the capitalists to give it up :lol:

K, regarding the planners bit, you're so far off base it's embarassing. who said planners are better than the private sector? corporations have planners to, you know; i've long said that the US is a planned economy just like the USSR, they just had differant methods of altering plans, which is where the problems began.

i do not assume planners are smarter or better than the private sector, i assume they're just as good but don't have to turn a profit, making them more efficient. and planned economies do not have unnecessarily redundant firms competing; in KSM if there are 100 consumers there will be 200 units produced, at least, probably 300; the firms that lose will see their products left to be thrown away because no one will buy them.

planned economies do not suffer from this problem, they suffer from differant problems.

re: that absurd Weber comment, read Veblen.

OOC:

I'm leaving the "US is a planned economy" comment because it is not my main point here.

Yes, planned economies have the disadvantage that it is IMHO impossible to guide the entire economic process of a nation efficiently and top-down. Which is basically what a planned economy is. Now I know you're going to bring up the "post-ex" planned economy but (and this is how I see such a theoretical wonderland) either

a) is production based on previous historical figures, which fails to respond to changing trends. (Mobile phones? anyone?) I assume you have about a million people hired who spend their time calculating and interpreting production quota then.
or...
b) involves timemachines and people sending demand and production quota back in time. Well... I suppose some future tech nations could pull it off.

In either system it would be difficult to deal with unexpected events because there is no real mechanism to regulate it. You'd have your million-person planning departement go crazy if a factory burned down. I presume that, like the USSR, you also like One Big Efficiënt Factory instead of many small ones?

To state my point with this post. I really cannot use your comments thus far in my reasoning because they are reasoned from an opposite economic paradigm. And both paradigms probably work in the real world, at least on the short to medium term but we have no means at all to compare them or to see which is better. These two paradigms are simply incompatible and that is why these discussions never amount to anything because neither side will ever be convinced.

Anyways, there is no way for me to know your country really because I only get abstract macroeconomic 'hurrah' concepts from you, not the practical workings of your economy on the ground level. If I could see that I could at least compare it to my country from a human perspective. Is a worker forced to work on a certain job? How does income distrubution work? If you do not get paid by rule of supply and demand or three-way talks how is your salary determined? That would be, at least, a start.

Would you still care to enlighten the little ignorant and unenlightened first year student me? And maybe the rest of the NS world who do not seem to have a clue either.

-----
Veblen... right. Off to the library then. :?

Oh, yes, and I'm still pondering on how to respond to your telegram... it'll come.

[quote="Knootoss"]OOC:

Yes, planned economies have the disadvantage that it is IMHO impossible to guide the entire economic process of a nation efficiently and top-down. [quote]

Read some stuff from Vosselman, Heizer, Huzcynski and Jans. Planned economies can also be established bottom-up. You'll find the argumentation and instruments with those authors. They apply it to large corporations, but nations can do the same.

*has never seen a totally bottum-up planned national economy IRL. Prefers a mixed system to mellow out the disadvantages of both paradigms and leaves it at that.*

a note regarding growth: it's necessary. if you're not growing it means the quality of life in your nation is sinking or stagnant, and in people's eyes the latter is the former. also, since it seems we can't stop population growth in this game (currseesss) growth is necessary just to keep up with your people's demands.

growth puts, of course, a strain on the environment, but i'm going to ignore that one because there's no way for us to stop population growth (unlike in the real world, where industralized nations seem to do it naturally).

and a lot of growth is good if you've got sectors that need to be expanded into. for instance, if Celdonia (with a very rapidly expanding economy) was doing a massive expansion of internal infrastructure (for instance, replacing all old tvs with new digital ones), then the growth would not be bad, since it is replacing old machines, not adding new ones. if he were, however, building Tamagochis, it might cause a problem. why? because if you're building new tv's you're using resourcs already alotted to tv production. if you're building something new, well it's a zero sum game, so something gets their resources skimmed.

or, if Celdonia is expanding into a sector that is needed, for instance building a military base in SeOCC (cofcof), then growth is good, because it serves a specific aim. if the sector was, however, maybe not so important, like building a new theme park right next door to another theme park, you can expect to get a low return (however you count it) on your investment.

now because Celdonia is a planned economy, sorry C but i have to say it, you'd want to downgrade his growth several thousand slots. why? simple: planned economies take longer to grow because they don't have the mass redundancy of multiple capital enterprises. just like we say that Kist rankings for IT should be downgraded to match our (or ours upgraded) because Kists produce lost of useless stuff (like a million unnecessary iterations of Windows and Office) that contributes to the size of the sector but not any real value, a planned economy might 'grow' very quickly, but see less material increase than a capitalist one.

planned economies are all about slow and steady wins the race.

but yes, C has a problem in that he has to constantly find new capital sinks to put production into. in order to keep people employed he has to expand into new sectors, or create more jobs in current sectors by expanding them. this gets very hard after a while because, well, look at you house. how much more stuff do you want? this is why modern firms build their stuff to break; quite literally they don't make them like they used to. the life expectancy for a car used to be over 30 years, now it's less than 10 before people buy a new one. this is why i buy used cars from private buyers; invest a thousand in brakes, tires and synthetic oil treatments and 80k miles is nothing.

so anyway, that's my take on it, enjoy.

[OOC: Essentially, what SeOCC is referring to here (unless I've gone insane and totally lost the plot), is the difference between a 'full-world economy' and a 'empty-world economy'. Although, of course, the phrases 'full-nation economy' and 'empty-nation economy' possibly work better.

For example:

Ethiopia has a empty-nation economy.

The USA has a full-nation economy.

Ethiopian economic growth, is, therefore, more prone to rapid, sweeping changes.

US economic growth is likely to change gently, whether in an upwards trend or a downwards trend.

As economic growth is measured by a percentile figure, this can be explained easily. I'm not sure about the GNP of Ethiopia, but it is likely to only be in the billion-dollar-figure-range, whereas the US GNP is in the trillion-dollar-figure-range. The difference is clear: inject US$5billion into the Ethiopian economy, and the upsurge (as a percentile figure) will be greater than the same value input into the US economy.

To apply this to NationStates:

If a nation is described as having a 'Frightening' economy, and is fairly high on the rankings, then their economy is actually growing in a 'large' real-figure manner.

If a nation is described as having a 'Strong' economy, and is in a similar position on the rankings for economic growth, then their economy is likely growing by the same percentile figure, but is growing at a far less vibrant rate in a real-figure manner.

That's the difference between open-nation and closed-nation economies; the open-nation economy has many niches to be filled, whereas the closed-nation economy does not. The effect on a closed-nation economy during a growth spurt is, thusly, generally far less drastic than an equal growth spurt for a open-nation economy.

To sum up: if you have a 'Frightening' or 'All-consuming' economy and are placed high in the rankings, then your economy is growing rapidly as far as real-figure economic growth is concerned.

If you have a weak economy and are highly placed, then it is unlikely (but not impossible! for example, you may have a 'Weak' economy, but be placed 1st in the rankings - that would show a pretty huge growth rate, which, actually, would not be a good thing... but that'd take too long to go into detail about) that the rankings are related to a high real-figure growth rate, but rather are related to a high percentile-figure growth rate.

NOTE: The NationStates comparison might be wrong, as, apparently, the Economic Growth Rate rankings are based on real-figure growth, and not percentile-figure growth, as I had assumed. Grrr.]

Thank you, Ma-Tek, for explaining this thoroughly.

However I thought that SeOCC was also referring to some kind of planned vs "unplanned" economies argument in the second half of his post...

props to Ma-Tek, that's a really good point re: full-nation empty-nation. goes back to the point about having lots of sectors that need development etc.

and for the love of god, it's EX POST, not post ex. think about it.

and ex post is not theory, it's practice. the entire field of management theory is basically answering the question of how you can change plans you've already made to please corporate masters. K you are in an differant economic paradigm, a very outdated Fordist paradigm because you're still thinking in top down rather than network. the USSR failed because it was hegemonic top down; but if you tried a planned ex post economy using network firms, that is firms with control of its own production, answering only to stastitical process controlled bosses from a central board, i don't see what's inconceivable about it.

and actually, re: TVC's reading list, i'd just do a search for statistical process control. modern, capitalist corporations are moving towards network production, something you still seem happily ignorant to. how does SeOCC's ground level production? good god, you should know this: i call it corporate technocracy. it works exactly like a modern day corporation does; the only differences between SeOCC firms and modern Kist firms are:

1) the firm is socially owned, not privately.
2) production is not for profit.
3) production is decided ex ante by a planning board, not by market demand (it is then adjusted ex post using market data).
4) employees are given purpose built employment rather than static positions, and are hired based on their specialized qualificatiosn rather than general rank.

that's it. other than that IT'S A MODERN CORPORATION. maybe you weren't around when i went off about this but i spent the last year of my time in college (which was last year) studying modern day capitalism, how it works, and how i can take the best parts of it and update Marx using it. remember, Marx loved KSM for the amazing things it could do, and hated it for what it did to people. same with me, Soros is an anti-hero of mine; i abhor what he did but admire that he could do it (the fact he's donating millions of his own forture to get Bush out of office helps too).

no one is forced to take a job, everyone is provided with clothing, housing, food, education and healthcare for free, period. remuneration is set by each firm, which monitors how it pays its own people; they are given a total budget by their oversight council and they can spend it how they want. of course if they underchange no one will work for them, and if the overchange they'll go over budget. workers can sue for higher wages throug the MSA or MoL, which basically forces oversight committees to allot more funds for salaries and earmarks them for certain workers. and so on and so on. IT'S A CORPORATION. owned by the people, run by non-profit technocrats.

as for the TG, i don't want a reply so don't send one. X wanted me to make my position clear so i did.

*puts little student cap with ‘call me KNOOT, not K’ on*

How very... capitalist, that system of yours. So, being the non-economist here I'll just be asking more naïve questions. I've done the same thing with libertarians (who also continually referred me to dozens of books I ought to read, including that "Rand" person you always speak of.) Please try to remember that I am not an economist, I just happen to take an interest in the subject now and then.

Anyways, to answer your point, I'm not advocating top-down economics. I am merely moving on the assumption that totally planned economies in nations I've seen IRL are top-down systems. In fact, I like networks. It’s why I *cofcof* “delude myself in to thinking” *cofcof* I have a third-wayish consensus-based system where decisions are being made based on talks. Such a system has it’s advantages and disadvantages, and I won’t play as if I have the perfect economy.

Well… basically you have a capitalist system. I’d still have some questions about how a “national corporation” could ever come into being historically. I mean… who would ever choose (or be able to) set up such a system. But never mind that, unless you have an explanation ready.

To go to your differences.

1) the firm is socially owned, not privately.
2) production is not for profit.
3) production is decided ex ante by a planning board, not by market demand (it is then adjusted ex post using market data).
4) employees are given purpose built employment rather than static positions, and are hired based on their specialized qualificatiosn rather than general rank.

1) Ahh… the old “owned by the workers” dictate. What kind of bothers me about this thing is that it seems to exclude the possibility that status is based on more then just the traditional means of production. More specifically, the “Evil Capitalists” no longer directly control the means of production. This is done by managers “PMC’s” you call them I believe. Well… I simply fail to see what is so terribly oppressing about that in itself. Actual power is shared… The ridiculously high salaries for managers indicates their demand. Economies (well… here in Europe anyways) are no longer controlled merely by private industries. About half of the GDP runs through the state in my country if I remember correctly.

Also another thing about it: ‘socially owned’ in your nation It would technically mean that workers own the factories, right, yet decisions are made centralised by the planning board.
It reminds me a bit of the collective farms in the Soviet Union, where the farmers ‘owned’ their farms but still had to do pretty much what the central government said. What is the practical day-to-day advantage of “socially owning” a factory? Does “socially owned” not simply mean that the central government / planning board decides? Doesn’t that cause the same powerlessness and alienation of the capitalist system? What influence do you, as a worker, have on your production input? Well… apart from quitting and being replaced by someone else who does want to comply.

2) Well… considering it’s a state that makes sense. How are ‘goals’ decided upon then? I mean, political goals because running a nation surely isn’t just a technical matter. Besides the planning board, does SeOCC have a parliament? A ruling elite? How does political input from the population work? Or is all of this normative stuff considered a ‘technical’ matter?

4) And this is all made possible through some kind of huge database which houses the “qualifications” of people? There is no initiative required for taking a job, is it just yes or no?

And also: does this mean that people with inferior “qualifications”, if the system is applied rationally, will always be poorer then people with superior “qualifications”? If so, isn’t that meritocratic instead of “egalitarian”?

[/questions]

*puts little student cap with ‘call me KNOOT, not K’ on*

K = one letter. Knoot = five letters. you can pick something with two letters but that's my limit. C, X, A, FS (both of them), RN, G, J, etc, can all attest to this. it's standard practice.

Such a system has it’s advantages and disadvantages, and I won’t play as if I have the perfect economy.

in case you didn't notice, you cannot have a network system under capitalism. why? because capital owners cannot engage in networks with the prols, plain and simply. Marx, among others, explains why not; it's called a differential in power.

and K, if you're a capitalist you are advocating top down; take a look at RL corporations. they may be network internally, but in their relations with the world they are far from it. it's all about power.

Well… basically you have a capitalist system. I’d still have some questions about how a “national corporation” could ever come into being historically. I mean… who would ever choose (or be able to) set up such a system. But never mind that, unless you have an explanation ready.

how it comes into power: you have a revolution where you seize control of corporations, which is just a new version of the old expropriate the means of production. that's it. you keep the corporations in tact and just change who runs them. as for why i'd do it, CORPORATIONS WORK. why replace them when the only thing wrong with them is who's calling the shots?

1) Ahh… the old “owned by the workers” dictate.

no, i said socially owned. for those not familiar with it, social ownership is VERY differant from worker ownership. social ownership means all of society, not just those that work in the factory, own the whatever. Slovenia ran their banks and various factories on this scheme and it worked beautifully.

What kind of bothers me about this thing is that it seems to exclude the possibility that status is based on more then just the traditional means of production.

i have no idea what this means.

More specifically, the “Evil Capitalists” no longer directly control the means of production. This is done by managers “PMC’s” you call them I believe.

well i wrote an entire essay detailing why the PMC 1) constitues a new social class seperate from the proletariat and 2) why the PMC is the new revolutionary class, so i agree. what you seem to forget is that Kists never controlled the means of production, workers have always done that; workers just lacked ownership. the Italian socialist movement had some very remarkable factory take overs where they just locked out managers and ran the plants.

the PMC is in the same place as the prols of Marx's time: controlling the productive facilities for the Kists. the more things change the more they stay the same.

Well… I simply fail to see what is so terribly oppressing about that in itself.

having just returned from the Philippines i'm going to skip the part about you being ignorant and just say this: go to Asia and you'll figure it out. the Labor Theory of Value is correct, and if you can't understand this you'll never understand economics. oh you might get capitalism, but not economics.

Also another thing about it: ‘socially owned’ in your nation It would technically mean that workers own the factories, right, yet decisions are made centralised by the planning board.

see above re: social ownership.

It reminds me a bit of the collective farms in the Soviet Union, where the farmers ‘owned’ their farms but still had to do pretty much what the central government said. What is the practical day-to-day advantage of “socially owning” a factory? Does “socially owned” not simply mean that the central government / planning board decides? Doesn’t that cause the same powerlessness and alienation of the capitalist system? What influence do you, as a worker, have on your production input? Well… apart from quitting and being replaced by someone else who does want to comply.

you'll notice that i don't bitch and moan about proletariat alienation, i leave that to the anarchists. what i care about are poor people and exploitation. if you don't like your job, quit, find a new one; better yet, quit complaining and figure out what it is inside your, spiritually, that makes you unsatisfied. re: the collective farms, you'll notice, if you dig a bit deeper, that those farms distinctly lacked and important ingredient: incentive. the incentive in my system, ic and irl, is the ability to buy luxury goods, which the state does not give you for free. collective farmers were basically shafted either way, so why work harder?

2) Well… considering it’s a state that makes sense. How are ‘goals’ decided upon then? I mean, political goals because running a nation surely isn’t just a technical matter. Besides the planning board, does SeOCC have a parliament? A ruling elite? How does political input from the population work? Or is all of this normative stuff considered a ‘technical’ matter?

the Ministries oversee very little of the day to day matters of life; that is left to Arco-Councils, which are elected from Arco-Clusters. there is no parliment, no ruling elite, just various institutions given specific jobs to fulfill. and there is no planning board, there is the Ministry of Economics, which is in charge of the economic planning. they answer to the Ministry of Social Affairs, which deal with any complaints people have (my boss is a dick, they work me too hard, i'm bored etc), the Ministry of Labor, which directly represents workers Unions in the government, the Ministry of Urban Affairs (over pollution, space used etc), the Ministry of Politics (over the political ramifications, for instance, of cutting 10k jobs) and so on. each Ministry is, in fact, equal to each other (except the MFA to the MoP, since the former is a semi-autonomous division of the latter).

the MoE plan has to be approved by a consensus of all Ministries, meaning each has had its concerns met. this creates a lot of wrangling over reaslic results and so on, and takes place well beneath the actual Ministers, who only put their names on the approval of the plans. Under Ministers head up divisions to approach specific problems, and it is these divisions that come up with plans and so on. multiple plans compete for approval, and several are then put into play to see how each functions.

this goes for all Ministries in SeOCC, not just the MoE. if the MoP puts something into play that pisses off the people (as former Minister O'Riordan did when she went courting L for closer ties) the MSA will hear about it and raise a shitstorm (as Minister Villivich did, you might recall). if the MUA zones something that fucks with an MoE plan you'll see the two in fist fights etc etc.

so no one actuall dicates production, and in the end, Arco-Councils have to go along with the plans, meaning the people do have a certain amount of direct power. you will often see coucil reps working with planners to avoid these kind of power struggles, which are, of course, just another part of the ultimate lexicographic instruction each plan must meet.

4) And this is all made possible through some kind of huge database which houses the “qualifications” of people? There is no initiative required for taking a job, is it just yes or no?

? of course you have to apply for a job. qualifications are listed on something called a 'resume,' or 'curricula vitae.' you might be familiar with them.

And also: does this mean that people with inferior “qualifications”, if the system is applied rationally, will always be poorer then people with superior “qualifications”? If so, isn’t that meritocratic instead of “egalitarian”?

egalitarian means emphasis on equality. absolute equality is stupid, it fucks up everything and i don't need to tell you that. incentive will set people apart, no doubt about it.

but meaningful eqality is what i'm interested in. sure, there will be an income differential, and it'll be big (the next time income differntial comes up check out SeOCC, our's is rather large), but the people on the bottom will have a decent house, guaranteed healthcare, free access to the same education as everyone else, food, clothing, and in all of that, biological security. if you never work a day in your life you'll still live okay. you won't be able to eat meat (it's not included in the stipend), or have the designer clothes (you'll shop at the reject shop or the basic lines of generics), your house will be spartan and your computer won't be that fast, but you'll never go hungry, die of preventable disease or be left in the cold.

people who can't cut the mustard, no, i'm not giving them the important jobs, that would be stupid. but i'm not leaving them behind either.

Or to put in a little slogan:
Why trust men to govern over others when you do not even trust them to govern themselves?
Might as well be FOE's motto. Well, actually, this is an important part of "autonomy in organization', which is FOE's motto.

FOE's(a narrow exception from Seocc's two letter policy btw :lol: ) production though can well be described as a 'planned economy.' It is planned from the bottom up, but it is planned never the less.

The communes collectively decide what they need, and the production requests are then sent to the relevent workers' associations who plan their production to meet these needs. The workers' associations that have placed themselves within the CACE extended autarchy also take into account general CACE needs.

In gerneral the Federated Anarchist Communes subscribe to the ideal of the 'Bhuddist Economy.' We limit our industreal production to essentials, avoiding redundency and operating in an ecologically sound manner thus leaving the maximun ammount of time for self actualization.

mmm - self-actualisation. x