The Empath Guild

[AdamTG02]

Mixed economy is reflected or reflectable in each of the three choices, yes. What the US had in the early 21st century is hard to classify, but given that government's penchant for regulation I'd say that it was Planned (a market economy kept in check by government regulations, such as the Fed, OSHA, etc.) until the reforms of the Clinton years, and after that hard to quantify. We simply made our allies run FM, and threaten to break Pact unless they let our corporations crawl their resources.

[Maniac]

You claim the US has a market held in check with government regulations, and you would call it planned?? Tell me, is there one country in the world which you would call FM then? And is there one country in the western world which has less regulations for corporations, where the government has less control over them?

[Hercules]

Well yes. Tax havens like the Cayman islands and there are several others less well known. Is Switzerland an example?

[GeneralTacticus]

They couldn't have those without the facilities.

True enough, but it's quite obvious that the colonists would have had access to at least basic forms of these long before any facilities were built.

But I suppose that's just quibbling over a minor detail

What would this place be without that?

*Shrugs* Perhaps, though I know that for some the percieved benifits or lack there-of of (not) having environmental regulations will colour all their decisions on this matter. Thankfully, it would seem you aren't one of those people.

For me, the only real drawback of the PLANEt penatly is that annoying Psiwar penalty, but if our scouts are good enough, it shouldn't make much difference, especially once we develop the Empath Song.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
True enough, but it's quite obvious that the colonists would have had access to at least basic forms of these long before any facilities were built.

Have to be very basic if the building of a simple proper Rec. Commons can make 10000 people happy instantly.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
What would this place be without that?

Boring.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
For me, the only real drawback of the PLANEt penatly is that annoying Psiwar penalty, but if our scouts are good enough, it shouldn't make much difference, especially once we develop the Empath Song.

Though of course, we shouldn't have our scouts with Empath. Give them Trance. To fight the worms, we have worm hunter rovers. 1e-1-2.

[AdamTG02]

Maniac: A market held in check by government regulations is exactly what SMAC calls Planned. It's not a true planned economy, correct, but . . .

A semi-market economy kept in check by fierce governmental regulation

fits the US more than does the idea of an entirely free market. In a true FM, no interference by OSHA or EPA in the process of business would be tolerated.

As to whether there's a nation on Earth that's pure FM in that manner -- Saudi Arabia. As to whether the US is a perfect fit for Planned -- of course it isn't. Sweden is a much better fit. But the point is that these regulatory institutions simply don't exist in SMAC's FM. Government regulation is only an issue in Planned.

That's my take, and could very well be wrong. Should anyone prove to me I am wrong in my opinion, I will change it.

[GeneralTacticus]

Have to be very basic if the building of a simple proper Rec. Commons can make 10000 people happy instantly.

20 000, actually, but I see your point. However, the colonists must have some form of healthcare, otherwise they'd all be dead pretty quickly.

Boring.

I agree.

Though of course, we shouldn't have our scouts with Empath. Give them Trance. To fight the worms, we have worm hunter rovers. 1e-1-2.

Agreed.

Adam: I would hardly call the Us a 'semi-market economy'. There are government regulations on it, but I always saw the Planned regulations as being less about minimum wages or environmental regulations and more about price & wage controls.

[Frankychan]

Destroy the laissez-faire market! The government should regulate all aspects of the market! the US market is more FM than any other market on Earth, how can you guys not see it? The US govt. is too under the influence of "Big Business".

We should regulate our market by our PK government and make it Planned. Our business's should understand that the GOVERNMENT is in charge here, not corporations.

[GeneralTacticus]

Destroy the laissez-faire market! The government should regulate all aspects of the market! the US market is more FM than any other market on Earth, how can you guys not see it? The US govt. is too under the influence of "Big Business".

Using a Free Market doesn't mean we have to repeat the mistakes of those who used it before us. We won't.

We should regulate our market by our PK government and make it Planned. Our business's should understand that the GOVERNMENT is in charge here, not corporations.

Yes, I'm sure future generations of PK citizens will be most understanding when we hand them a faction reminiscent of the dying USSR or Eastern Europe.

[Frankychan]

Bah! *throws hands up in the air*

Just when we agree on things you have to disagree!

FM leads to more governmental corruption through greed and more available resources! The corporations under our government should be put under our heel and be made to understand that they are subserviant (sp?) to us, not vice versa.

Just because our government switches to a Planned economic pattern doesn't mean it will lead to a "dying USSR-like economy". I'd rather have strict governmental policies dictating how the market should be run rather than widespread corporate corruption that happened in the early 21st century. White collar crime is/was much more destructive than blue (or working class) collar crime.

[GeneralTacticus]

FM leads to more governmental corruption through greed

Human nature doesn't magically change because of the way your economy is set up. People are just as corruptible under Planned as under FM, but their corruption actually has more impact, as more power is concentrated into fewer hands, and there are less resources to go around.

and more available resources!

More resources does not equal more corruption. When resources are scarce, then you see enormous corruption, because people will desperate to grab their share. With more resources, you reduce the incentive for corruption (assuming you back this with strong laws against corruption).

Just because our government switches to a Planned economic pattern doesn't mean it will lead to a "dying USSR-like economy".

Oh yes, it will. Not today, not tommorow, but it will, as surely as night follows day. It is phsically impossible, without Thought Control, for a government to efficiently run an economy. Economic inefficiency and corruption were what destroyed Sovietism.

[GeneralTacticus]

I'd rather have strict governmental policies dictating how the market should be run rather than widespread corporate corruption that happened in the early 21st century.

There's no reason why it should have to be a choice between one or another. Corporate corruption was a result of an ethical failure on the part of the CEOs, not a failure of the system.

White collar crime is/was much more destructive than blue (or working class) collar crime.

Of course. But using a Planned economy doesn't eliminate white-collar crime, it just places it all in government.

[Frankychan]

Human nature doesn't magically change because of the way your economy is set up. People are just as corruptible under Planned as under FM, but their corruption actually has more impact, as more power is concentrated into fewer hands, and there are less resources to go around.

Does not the most of the 21st centuries economic power rest in oligarchical (i.e. "good-ole-boy") power? The only change would be a shift of power from private industry holders into governmental hands.

More resources does not equal more corruption. When resources are scarce, then you see enormous corruption, because people will desperate to grab their share. With more resources, you reduce the incentive for corruption (assuming you back this with strong laws against corruption).

When more resources are available to the "haves", they will try and control its introduction to the "have-nots". Just because a resouce is abundant does not necessarily mean that there will be less corruption. It's more about who controls the available resources rather than how much resources are available.

Oh yes, it will. Not today, not tommorow, but it will, as surely as night follows day. It is phsically impossible, without Thought Control, for a government to efficiently run an economy. Economic inefficiency and corruption were what destroyed Sovietism.

What destroyed 20th century Russian Soviet-ism was the lack of global economics and the US's unwillingness to open trade with "The Reds". Although true, corruption did destroy Russian communism in the 20th century, we see that US corportate corruption is/was gaining. It is/was only a matter of time before the Thought Control of the times (i.e. Mass Media) caught on to public interest did/do we see that corporate greed is/was the same as Soviet greed and corruption.

[GeneralTacticus]

Does not the most of the 21st centuries economic power rest in oligarchical (i.e. "good-ole-boy") power? The only change would be a shift of power from private industry holders into governmental hands.

While the economy of the 21st century is certainly not a good model for us, I'd rather keep the corruption in corporations than place it in the 'State Planning Commission'.

When more resources are available to the "haves", they will try and control its introduction to the "have-nots". Just because a resouce is abundant does not necessarily mean that there will be less corruption. It's more about who controls the available resources rather than how much resources are available.

Yet you somehow think this will be different under a Planned economy? The only difference between the two is that under Planned, the state becomes the corporations. Corruption doesn't become a perversion of the system, it becomes a feature of it.

What destroyed 20th century Russian Soviet-ism was the lack of global economics and the US's unwillingness to open trade with "The Reds".

Other factors helped to exacerbate Soviet economic difficulties, but that doesn't change the fact that they would have existed regardless. It would simply have taken longer for them to fall.

Although true, corruption did destroy Russian communism in the 20th century, we see that US corportate corruption is/was gaining.

US corporate corruption came about because of excessive privatisation, in that corporations were effectively permitted to audit themselves. There's no reason why we should repeat those mistake here.

It is/was only a matter of time before the Thought Control of the times (i.e. Mass Media) caught on to public interest did/do we see that corporate greed is/was the same as Soviet greed and corruption

I'm getting very tired of your comparing the Mass Media to Thought Control. The media has enormous power over people's perceptions, true, and this is not a good thing, but there's nothing to stop you from disbelieving the media. It is physically impossible to resist Though Control.

[Frankychan]

good point. i think i'll stop before this turns into a "Frankychan vs. Everone else" thread.



Still....i'm just debating in a friendly matter, no need to get .....if in fact you are.

[AdamTG02]

Well, I admit this comes a little late, but you're right. A semi-market economy is not what the US has now. Planed implies wage and price controls and extensive entitlements. Neither of those fit the US of the early 21st century.

[Hercules]

* Hercules looks in: looks at debate and exits very quckly*

Aghhhh.

[GeneralTacticus]

good point. i think i'll stop before this turns into a "Frankychan vs. Everone else" thread.

Good idea.

Still....i'm just debating in a friendly matter, no need to get .....if in fact you are.

Nah, no problem. It's good to debate with people, it makes you think about things more.

[Maniac]

It's not Frankychan vs everyone else. I agree with your position on Centralized Mass Media = Thought Control, Frankychan.

[GeneralTacticus]

It's not Frankychan vs everyone else. I agree with your position on Centralized Mass Media = Thought Control, Frankychan.

Only in a very primitive sense. the media can only influence people's perceptions, not control them; while this can have an enormous impact if it's very biased, it loses effect altogether if people realize that it's biased. And like I said, you're free to disagree with the media; you can't do the same about Thought Control.

[Maniac]

Ok, of course Centralized Mass Media isn't the same as the Thought Control proces as invisioned in SMAC, but it has the same intention. And I'm sure some media moguls and 'democratic' presidents would want to thought control, if they just had the technological means.

And like I said, you're free to disagree with the media

Unless you are trained in historical critique or something, the common wo/man can never be fully aware when s/he is being influenced. If you are told your entire life by the media that socialism is bad, most people will think it's bad. If you grow up in a social security system, many support such a system. How else do you explain such differences as between the US and Europe? Media and culture in general conditions you from your birth on. Thoughts can never be independent or neutral from the information you receive.

[AdamTG02]

Maniac: You ignore the fact that the "barons" of the media are raised in the same environment that we are raised in. They aren't doing it to control others -- they're doing it to spread what they believe is the truth.

Now, a Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson, a manipulative public official -- those you have to watch out for. (By naming a President from each of my nation's major parties, I hope to not offend anybody. Nice try.)

[lucky22]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
Maniac: You ignore the fact that the "barons" of the media are raised in the same environment that we are raised in.

What would you suppose the proportion of "media barons" and other CEOs who went to private versus public school would look like compared to a given society as a whole? How about compared as an exclusive sample to the other strata of society.
That would only be the tip of the iceberg of social-environmental considerations.

[AdamTG02]

It doesn't matter whether they're raised in wealthy families or not -- the point is that they're indoctrinated in culture, either from their schools or from their parents. They're going to spread that culture without consciously meaning to.

[GeneralTacticus]

Ok, of course Centralized Mass Media isn't the same as the Thought Control proces as invisioned in SMAC, but it has the same intention. And I'm sure some media moguls and 'democratic' presidents would want to thought control, if they just had the technological means.

I agree, IRL I'm quite sure that most politicians would love some kind of Thought Control, as long as they were the ones in control. That, though, is beside the point.

As for the rest, I think Adam covered it sufficiently, so I won't bother to repeat his points.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
It doesn't matter whether they're raised in wealthy families or not -- the point is that they're indoctrinated in culture, either from their schools or from their parents. They're going to spread that culture without consciously meaning to.

Culture is not a homogenous quality in modern society. Those in control spread a mass consumerism rather than the culture in which they are raised. They promote whatever soul-destroying pap will sell without necessarily being conscious of it, sure. Next quarter's bottom line is usually the conscious concern of the moment.

[Kirov]

Indeed, there's a big difference between culture of upper class and culture of working class. The 'mass culture' is directed to working and middle classes. "Media barons" are of course from upper class and they do not inherit the culture they spread.
Of course I generalize, but you get the point.

And it really does not make sense to argue whether "media barons" consciously use techniques of manipulation or not. IMHO their priority is to sell as much informations as possible, not to make people more and more stupid but these two goals are in fact the same (they will sell more if people will be more stupid), so the argument about it is really meaningless.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by lucky22
What would you suppose the proportion of "media barons" and other CEOs who went to private versus public school would look like compared to a given society as a whole? How about compared as an exclusive sample to the other strata of society.
That would only be the tip of the iceberg of social-environmental considerations.

This goes a way back, but anyway. What's your problem with Private Schools? While I personally went to a public school, I've got no problem with people getting a better education if they can afford to pay more for that education. Education is just like any other good, from a TV to a VCR to whatever. The higher the ticket price, the higher the expectation of quality.

Originally posted by lucky22
Next quarter's bottom line is usually the conscious concern of the moment.

A popular misconception, but completly out of line with modern management theory and practise. Go back 50 to 100 years and it might've been right, but this hasn't been the case for quite some time now. The ones only concerned with the short term bottom line are the shareholders, those generally being the mum and dad investors who just want as high a dividend on their share portfolios as possible.

Originally posted by Kirov
Indeed, there's a big difference between culture of upper class and culture of working class. The 'mass culture' is directed to working and middle classes. "Media barons" are of course from upper class and they do not inherit the culture they spread.
Of course I generalize, but you get the point.

Ah, now here's the heart of the problem. You're all assuming
1) There's only the Upper Class and the Lower (Working) Class.
2) One is born into his class and cannot move between them.

1) is rebutted by the simple existance of the (Ever-growing) Middle Class
2) is rebutted by the existance of Media Moguls from humble backgrounds who worked themselves up from, for example, delivering papers, to owning the paper, to owning a stack of papers domestically, to owning many papers internationally, etc, etc, etc, to being the guy who owns News Corp. Hey, this refutes lucky22 as well. "Those in control spread a mass consumerism rather than the culture in which they are raised." See the contradiction between this and fact yet?

I think you might be failing to grasp there lucky that people in the upper classes in general deserve to be there, either through their own personal effort to get there, or through the effort of their ancestors, who worked themselves up to provide an easier life for their decendants.

Originally posted by Kirov
And it really does not make sense to argue whether "media barons" consciously use techniques of manipulation or not. IMHO their priority is to sell as much informations as possible, not to make people more and more stupid but these two goals are in fact the same (they will sell more if people will be more stupid), so the argument about it is really meaningless.

*BUZZ* Wrong! The better educated the populace is, the better things sell. That holds true for everything from computers to TV's to newspapers. You think they'd print the "Far Eastern Economic Review" if everyone was so dumb that they couldn't sell it? And let's not forget that dumb unskilled employees aren't of any use in this day and age. Blue collar is out, white collar is in. Better education works for everyone.
Now, while they *do* aim a significant amount of stuff at the LCD's, they don't make the LCD's any dumber than they already are. Only problem is...LCD's are generally the ones who breed faster. A sad fact, but the more intelligent you are, the longer you generally leave off having a child, and the less children you eventually have.

[GeneralTacticus]

A popular misconception, but completly out of line with modern management theory and practise. Go back 50 to 100 years and it might've been right, but this hasn't been the case for quite some time now. The ones only concerned with the short term bottom line are the shareholders, those generally being the mum and dad investors who just want as high a dividend on their share portfolios as possible.

So what is it they ARE after?

[Archaic]

Long term growth and profitability. They'd rather invest in the community now to reap the future benifits of that investment. It's partly for security. Rape everyone for all they're worth now, and your business is screwed within a few years. Invest in the community, and reap the profits of happy and satisfied consumers (And a consumer base that's constantly growing) for many years to come.