Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Interested in a FREE copy of HTML5 game maker Construct 2?

We'll be giving away three Personal Edition licences in next Tuesday's GDNet Direct email newsletter!

Sign up from the right-hand sidebar on our homepage and read Tuesday's newsletter for details!


US Government Will Never Fix It's Financial Problems


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
115 replies to this topic

#21 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 26 November 2012 - 03:37 PM

The stock market is a great example of this: It's a race to see who can 'play' the stocks enough to get rich quick at the expense of everyone else playing the stock market.

Technically playing the stock market is a race to see who can get rich quick with no regard for anyone else; a symantic, but important, difference. :P

Sponsor:

#22 Luckless   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1830

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:21 PM


They could always move to a practical form of communism, where the focus is on efficient use of resources and labour to meet the requirements and desires of an entire population in a fair and well organized fashion, and having the side benefit of 99.9% employment and probably around a 20 hour work week in most fields, which would leave far more time for the population to engage in art, sciences, and general education or travel. A problem of debt only ever exists when two parties assume one exists. If one party finds a way where they no longer have to be bound by it, well, then it magically goes away.

I don't see how you can magically handwave away the issues. If the amount of things that people want from the Government is more than the amount the Government receives, then that kind of problem is still faced in communism, just that you now have the state providing all the services, and everyone working for the state. So rather than questions like how much should people be taxed, and what should the Government spend money on, you now have the question of what work should people be doing.


Which is the point.

Under the current system you get the problem of having enough resources to meet the needs of the people, but because tax revenues aren't high enough, governments can't provide the services (people doing a job) that are required. How many of you know someone who is qualified to work as a teacher, but is unemployed or working some other job till they can get a full time position?

Society has the food, the clothing, the housing, and nearly everything else these people want, but I personally know half a dozen people working part time jobs in places like coffee shops and the like, because the government can't 'afford' enough positions to have them doing something far more useful. Why? Because they don't have the money.

Unplanned economies are gambles. They are bets, where millions of people are secretly making plans and trying to figure out how they can pull a win out of their ass before someone else does and ruins their chance. With a planned economy you sit everyone down, figure out what is actually wanted, decide who are the best people to address a given want, and have them figure out what they need in order to fulfil those requirements. There are no wasted resources because someone else brought their product to market a few weeks before you did and killed your sales. Less duplication of R&D efforts, because everyone working in a field would be expected to share information and developments. Sure, you get fewer product choices over all, but in theory all can be higher quality because open planning is more likely to go with the better options.

I've spent a lot of time talking with older Russian and Ukrainian immigrants, and not one of them blamed the failure of their economies on communism, but rather mismanagement, corruption, and greed. And the truth is that we now have the telecommunications and computing requirements to make a go at a Real planned economy a viable thing.

But no, commies are bad, lazy, and horrible workers. They're evil and smell bad too apparently.

Writing numbers on slips of worthless paper, and then individually gambling what they are really worth is such a better systems.
Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.

#23 Shippou   Members   -  Reputation: 1668

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:46 PM

Just a note: the longest lasting governments historically are dictatorships / monarchy .

 Reactions To Technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

- Douglas Adams 2002


 


#24 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:10 PM

How many of you know someone who is qualified to work as a teacher, but is unemployed or working some other job till they can get a full time position?

The US school system isn't exactly capitalist either. It's actually a big part of the many problems with the US education system.

#25 Khaiy   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1342

Posted 26 November 2012 - 05:39 PM


How many of you know someone who is qualified to work as a teacher, but is unemployed or working some other job till they can get a full time position?

The US school system isn't exactly capitalist either. It's actually a big part of the many problems with the US education system.


Though it bears noting that it's not necessarily the lack of capitalism-like organization that causes the school system to contribute to failures of the US education system as a whole.

#26 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 30882

Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:31 PM

Look, the problem isn't just capitalism. Modern history has demonstrated very well that communism doesn't work either. The problem is people. If people are perfect, then sure... communism is the way to go. If everyone contributes their fair share, and everyone exhibits perfect compassion, then yes, all problems will magically go away. Let me know when that momentous evolutionary shift happens.

If you want to generalize about the people, then modern democracy is entirely flawed because people aren't perfect -- yes, if everyone is educated on the matters being discussed in the legislature, then most problems go away, but otherwise it's all just marketing.
Or -- capitalism only works in theory when all the agents in the system have perfect knowledge and all act equally ruthlessly in their self-interest, resulting in perfect balance. As soon as any agent has misinformation or compassion, the balance is forever lost.
If we're judging economies on their ability to economize, then capitalism is a complete and utter failure. Where's the cost of using up stores of non-renewable resources in it's equations? Where does reduction in biodiversity fit into it's models? Why are we ok with the fact that we choose to have a poverty class, and choose to have less than 100% employment as a matter of economic policy?

The problem with those kind of statements is that you use a very selective kind of history. Firstly, you ignore any kind of gift economy or tribal group, or even the modern family (which is a small tribal communism). But more importantly, you ignore any kind of communism that doesn't fit into the brutal Stalinist dictator model, such as those that you'll find in rural parts of your own country, or any that was working until America decided to blow them up, like Vietnam, or those that they assisted in the genocide of, like Bali.

The American military aggression against Vietnam ended in 1975, with Nixon having promised $3.25B in repatriations. However, that grant was never actually given, and instead all offshore Vietnamese assets were frozen, and all exports to Vietnam (including Aid programmes) were restricted under "trading with the enemy" laws. They were economically isolated under a 10 year siege, until in the mid 80's they eventually gave in to the aggression and allowed the IMF to come in and help them re-write their laws to follow the capitalist model.
Before handing the country over to the IMF, people had the right to farm the land around their villages, which was used to supply the schools, hospitals, rural co-operatives and emergency store, which meant there was always more than enough food to go around. They had free education and some of the highest literacy rates in their region.
After the transition, land must be bought from the state before it can be farmed, and crops must be sold for the best price (which means export), which has resulted in half the population being malnourished, even when there is a 'rice surplus'. Further, much of the prime agriculture land has been sold to foreign developers to build resorts, permanently reducing the ability for communities to feed themselves. Now, 70% of the population are in 'absolute poverty' (world bank's wording).

But yes, history has shown that if you dare free yourself from the free market, you won't last long.

a system that coldly enforces a false compassion through the application of state force upon a populace ... enforcing a system of taking from someone to give to someone else ...

Side note -- the above statements can be applied to the IRS Posted Image
There's the obsession on Stalin again... What about the Amish - they do work simply because there's not much else to do in their culture. What if they used modern technology and only had to do 1 hour of work a day?
What about the cultures who produce what they can, take what they need, then give the rest to the store? There's no taking and there's still enough to go around...

 
Personally, if I was writing a sci-fi story 100 years in the future, I'd see things being much the same, with most of the general population living in poverty and struggling to get by, and the few uber-rich on top living well... but with the middle class living in "communist" corporations -- You get a job at a company, they give you an apartment within their secure campus, near your office. There's company guards to keep the rabble out of the compound, there's free company transportation to get you around. There's a company supermarket with all the items you need, which are all free for company employees to take as needed. While living on the campus, you don't need money at all. Your paycheques are pretty much your 401K contribution, being saved away in case you're ever let go from the company and ejected back into the real world. You raise your kids on the campus, and they're looked after by the company daycare and company schools. They're educated and trained in some skill-set that is useful to the company, and if they succeed, they're given a job in the company. Entire generations could go by without ever leaving the company's comfortable protective bubble from the harsh reality of capitalism, but the threat of being "let go" would be ever present.

Edited by Hodgman, 26 November 2012 - 07:47 PM.


#27 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 7393

Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:53 PM

It won't get fixed because despite various systems being 'broken' (capitalism and western model of democracy) any attempt to fix or change the system is met with the old retorts of 'communism doesn't work' and 'democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the rest'.

So instead of trying to come up with something NEW we instead stick with the broken model, invent large sums of "money" to prop up the mistakes of others (while failing to punish the others) and continue with a democracy which is nothing more than a popularity contest with no real connection to the real world or anything going on in it to the extent where even if you think your opponent has a good idea you don't dare agree with him for fear of losing your power.

All this is against a back drop of falling education and a worrying backslide on science in some places, the continued loop-hole exploiting of large companies (which would be closed if people didn't fear them just packing up and going to the next lax country), the 'little people' losing jobs and money while the rich continue to get 'tax breaks' to make jobs (and then failing to), an inability to help your fellow man (a concept which seems like 'the worst thing ever' to many in the USA) and conflicts continuing to kick off around the world killing those who have nothing to do with it and putting people into power who then make their own power grab.

The system is fucked gentlemen but instead we just continue onwards as though it will sort itself out at some point....

#28 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8569

Posted 26 November 2012 - 09:30 PM

But communism doesn't work, not on a national scale. I challenge you to come up with one single model from history that would work to fix the US, rather than causing a mess even worse than what we have. And don't bring up the Amish or Vietnamese farmers again, because that's pretty hilarious that anyone would think that a small, close-knit, low-tech, basically agrarian society where the lifestyle of each member is largely the same as the next (or at least not very far removed), is in any way, shape or form analogous to a large, complex, heterogenous society such as the whole of the entire US. A communist form of government works great on a small scale, where people can be held personally accountable, and where the social and geographic distribution of the members doesn't cause imbalances in the supply/demand of food and vital services. But on a large scale? Large enough to cover an entire nation of urban and rural areas? You build the infrastructure to take the food surplus that the rural areas produce and distribute it to the urban consumers, and you open up a lot of places for the same kind of top-level corruption and graft that exists today, only now you've dis-incentivized the producers from playing along because what's in it for them? They have the food they need, they can exist on a significantly lower level of tech than the urban consumers can. From their point of view, the consumers are parasites taking what they haven't earned and giving what, exactly, in return? Without seeing how the society operates at all levels (which any member of a small Amish community can see in their own society) there is no way to know that you aren't supporting any number of folks unwilling to work for themselves and content to drink the work-sweat off the brow of people who are willing. You can't see all the ties that bind the community together; in truth, there are no ties. It's an unworkable system, at least without Servant of the Lord's benevolent dictator-for-life sacrificing himself to keep those communal bonds tight and keep the infrastructure honest and clean.

Edited by JTippetts, 26 November 2012 - 09:50 PM.


#29 Shippou   Members   -  Reputation: 1668

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:22 PM

^ ^ ^
46 million people collect food stamps in the US ....

 Reactions To Technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

- Douglas Adams 2002


 


#30 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 30882

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:21 PM

You can't see all the ties that bind the community together; in truth, there are no ties

Maybe that's the problem? The last 30 years have been built on the phrase "There is no such thing as "society," only individuals and families". It's socially acceptable to be isolated and only care about yourself or your family (a position that would be abhorrent in other cultures), and some vague sense of belonging to the nation as a whole. As you pointed out, the kind of societies where less cut-throat policies work fine are ones where people actually interact with each other socially.
Maybe economic models are completely irrelevant if the root cause of the problem is actually in social organisation?

I challenge you to come up with one single model from history that would work to fix the US

Even including hypothetical non-historic models, that's a challenge comparable to fixing all middle-east conflicts... It's going to take a great disaster to push the US into something more sustainable.

Yes, it's inconceivable that 300 million people, largely in urban areas, could suddenly transition to a completely different form of economy based on sharing without causing complete chaos. That would take magic. That's why realistically I see these kinds of communities emerging on corporate campuses.
A smaller, more realistic, but meaningful change might be to actually implement the Full Employment Act (as has been done before -- Australian unemployment used to be measured in thousands of people, not percentage points -- but was abandoned to allow greater exploitation of labour resources by private entities).

there is no way to know that you aren't supporting any number of folks unwilling to work for themselves

Same goes with paying tax though, right?
As long as there's an abundance, do you care?
Pretend that we built a magical techno-utopia, complete with urban farms, etc, where we had robots to make everything we ever needed, and as long as everyone put in 1 hour of volunteering a week to maintain the robots, everything would be fine --
* do you really think that the majority of people would avoid volunteering and instead just sit on their arse practicing their crocheting?
* even if half of people did so, do you think the other half wouldn't be ok with doing 2 hours of work a week?
* would some people even work 'full time' just for the sense of purpose, even though there's no economic incentive to?
* if the robot/human population was segregated, so that say 100 people shared the same robots to maintain (and collectively suffered if they failed to), and these people all interacted socially, do you think that would increase people's chances of pitching in?
* what if groups could banish anti-social members?

Personally, if it meant that I was free to pursue my mastery of programming, I'd definitely be happy to volunteer a large part of my time to the mundane tasks involved in maintaining such a techno-utopia, and I'm optimistic enough about humanity to think that most people would also do what needed to be done without being forced to, and without being preoccupied as to whether the efforts of others are equal to their own efforts or not. Yes, when the machines break down and food becomes scarce, things would change, but, assuming abundance..?

However, if you were a bazillionaire with the capability to build such a place, where a community is completely self-sufficient and able to export surplus products to surrounding communities for free, you'd have to be pretty naive to think that the current powers that be wouldn't try to destroy you for doing so. The very idea that we have the ability to reject money is a threat to those with a lot of money.

Edited by Hodgman, 27 November 2012 - 12:03 AM.


#31 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8569

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:46 AM

Maybe that's the problem? The last 30 years have been built on the phrase "There is no such thing as "society," only individuals and families". It's socially acceptable to be isolated and only care about yourself or your family (a position that would be abhorrent in other cultures), and some vague sense of belonging to the nation as a whole. As you pointed out, the kind of societies where less cut-throat policies work fine are ones where people actually interact with each other socially.
Maybe economic models are completely irrelevant if the root cause of the problem is actually in social organisation?


That's kind of the way I see it. I'm still sort of working through my own personal philosophy about these things, really, as until recently I've lived pretty comfortably and had few complaints. Had the blinders on, so to speak. But the past ten years have been pretty terrifying. It might sound dramatic to say so, but we've been seeing the failure of democracy and free enterprise in this country; unfortunately, the shape of that failure looks horribly like the worst form of communism from my current perspective,

I come from (and have recently moved back to) a very small farming community in Wyoming. Close access to large stands of timber, metal resources, and plenty of arable land. Close to the top of the water-shed, so abundant water. Locally we produce numerous crops and agricultural products: sugar beets, corn, wheat, barley and so forth, as well as plenty of cattle, sheep and pigs. A dam a hundred miles away provides hydroelectric. Our area isn't self-sufficient, but it could be very near to it if necessary, making up the rest through barter. I understand the allure of communism because I grew up exposed to a simpler form of it. (Though capitalism based upon trust-based barter might actually be a more accurate description) Still... the community is fairly tight knit. And we share and help each other, to a certain extent. For the past several years, our community has done a large community garden to which all contribute, and all are allowed to partake of the harvest. The product of the garden, as well as our own garden at home, has provided a very significant part of my family's food supply in the last couple years. It's all the best parts of communism/socialism, but it's based upon the simple necessity of everyone doing their part.

Take any society and break it down to the most basic fundamentals that it needs to survive and you have a list that is pretty much what an individual needs to survive: food, water and shelter. Food is the ultimate basis of any economy; everything else is a house of cards built on top of it. Take away the supply of food, and your society will die; all the technology, all the services and products, the gizmos and doodads are ultimately just markers representing food (or water or shelter). Even video games are just very far-removed markers. We make the games so that we can pay the rent and buy the bacon.

The recent election was an eye-opener for a lot of people here where I live, people who have until now been relatively content to do their farming and growing and herding, business as usual, not entirely happy with the federal government but not discontent either. That is, until recently. Look at the election maps for the recent presidential election, see who voted Romney and who voted Obama. The blue dots are almost a picture-perfect portrait of the urban areas. The red dots, conversely, outline the rural. The producers. This election, more than any election I have witnessed in the context of this place, struck fear into the hearts of the producers of this country. We had record voter turnouts, and record new-voter registrations, levels unheard of in any past election. The reason can be summed up with one stupid, made-up word: Obamaphones.

Now, yes, most people around here are decent. If folks are in need, most people around here will help. We are pre-dominantly LDS (Mormon), and at any given point in time there are any number of service projects (quilting, sewing, care package assembly, even "exports", if you will, of volunteers to disaster areas around the area or country) in progress. We enjoy helping others; it brings us happiness. But "help" does not, in our minds, translate to "give that lady a phone". Why should we labor and sweat so that she can have her food stamps and her phone, given to her on a platter if only she'll vote the Democrat line? That is the worst form of communism, right there. That is a boot on our necks. That is armed force taking from us the fruits of our labors in an act of forced compassion to sate the greed of someone who is simply unwilling to do the work for themselves. It doesn't matter if we have a surplus; that sort of imbalance is, and should be, an outrage to any free person. Charity and kindness are great, and there are people who truly need help. We don't begrudge anyone who truly is in need, but that's not what we're seeing. We're not seeing people truly in need, we're seeing people who have been promised food stamps and Obamaphones and free healthcare, and all of these are markers that boil down to that most basic of currencies: food. And it's us, the people of my community and of thousands of other communites just like mine, who are going to ultimately have to foot that bill. We're going to have to labor, above and beyond the level of our subsistence, so that those folks can have their phones for free.

That's the brand of communism we face.

It's pretty easy to say "provide useful labor for everyone and people will be happy to do their fair share" but will they? Will they really? I don't think so. I think that the welfare-state mentality, the handouts and the Obamaphones are very persuasive bribes. As you say, who wouldn't want to kick back and let the robots gives us food so we don't have to work for it? I have lived in the city as well (8 years in Phoenix, 5 in Seattle) and I have seen the other side of the coin. I have lived among people who, for all that they knew about where the food actually comes from, might as well have been living off the sustenance of those magical robots. They were consumers in every sense of the word, taking in and taking in and not giving back so much as a cent or an ear of corn. I have done drywall and tile work in the apartments of countless people, able-bodied and young, who had no gainful employment nor any inclination to seek out such, but who had their Obamaphones (and ObamaXBoxes, and ObamaHDTVs, and ObamaMacs) regardless.

Romney was hung out to dry for his remarks regarding the 47%, but he was only voicing the same concerns that have suddenly become grave matters sitting at the very forefront of the minds of the majority of my friends, family and associates in this place. We are the producers, the very foundation of one of the 3 legs of society, and this particular unsavory brand of communism that this country is embracing is a jack-boot aimed directly at our necks. We aren't facing some sort of communist utopia, where there is plenty for all and everyone is happy to pitch in and help how they may. We are facing a communism where 10% of the population will sweat and labor so that 47% can have their Obamaphone.

In a free-market economy, we can farm for our subsistence and sell our surplus for markers or barters for luxuries and conveniences provided by someone else. But if that boot comes down and the communists come in and say "you must labor and produce so that these others can have their unearned share" then what markers do we get in return? What does that lady with her Obamaphone contribute back to us, such that society is made better for her contribution? What good is it to us? Should we just throw up our hands and say "We don't want to work anymore, so give us our Obamaphones and our food stamps so that we don't have to!"

Sorry, this is turning into kind of a crazy rant. I know it's currently fashionable to affect an air of compassion ("We have to help those illegal immigrants, we have to have compassion, why can't you just give your Fair Share and help out these welfare recipients? Why are you so cruel, that you can't pay for everyone else's healthcare? Why are you so selfish that you can't pay your crushing tax burden to help out these people who won't help themselves?") I know it's currently "in" to talk about socialism and wealth re-distribution, about taxing those filthy evil rich people because there are poor folks out there who still haven't been given an Obamaphone. But replacing free enterprise with the jack-boot is the only thing we're looking at here, and to hear other people (outsiders, people who won't have to live with the immediate, direct consequences of what is happening) say "Just embrace communism already, you damned capitalist pig" (maybe not in so many words) is frustrating and infuriating, to say the least.

Anyway, again, this has kind of brought out the bad side of me, and I really don't have the understanding of society and economics that I really need to make reasoned decisions: an oversight of mine that I am seeking to rectify, slowly and painfully. I kind of feel bad and dirty, really, for even taking part in this discussion, simply because I don't know enough. But I have a healthy amount of real fear (we are already seeing plenty of ripple-effects, of this election and certain bad bits of policy) and, for me and my neighbors, the brand of communism being brought to us is a pretty scary sight, rather than the hopeful one that some people would have us believe it is.

#32 3Ddreamer   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3159

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:06 AM

Waste is a price of democracy, so the deficit will reappear until democracy is gone forever. The nature of the vote causes democracy to put human flaw into law. Since humans are all flawed, democracy is flawed. Compromise results in the dilution of solutions to problems and creates many new problems to solve.

No political system made in this world has succeeded in all major areas - not even close.

Wasteful parents give birth to wasteful offspring and democracy channels their wastefulness into public policy creating debt.

Only direct intervention by a superior culture not of this world will guide humanity to solve more problems than it creates in combination with a global catastrophy to terminate many of the billions of wasteful people, though I hate the thought of this reality.


Waste causes Deficit and only will be permanently elliminated by a global purge of everyday ordinary wasteful people.

Though I am an advocate of peace and prosperity, reality can not be ignored. My view is not extreme, it is an admittance of what is inevitable.



Clinton

Personal life and your private thoughts always effect your career. Research is the intellectual backbone of game development and the first order. Version Control is crucial for full management of applications and software.  The better the workflow pipeline, then the greater the potential output for a quality game.  Completing projects is the last but finest order.

 

by Clinton, 3Ddreamer


#33 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 889

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:35 AM

Under the current system you get the problem of having enough resources to meet the needs of the people, but because tax revenues aren't high enough, governments can't provide the services (people doing a job) that are required. How many of you know someone who is qualified to work as a teacher, but is unemployed or working some other job till they can get a full time position?

Even in an entirely planned economy, you cannot work things out or predict things exactly, decades in advance. What happens when you have more teachers than are currently needed in your economy?

Society has the food, the clothing, the housing, and nearly everything else these people want

I'm not sure what you mean by "society". If we're talking about something that everyone might want, rather than need, I'm not sure that there is enough for everything that everyone wants.

but I personally know half a dozen people working part time jobs in places like coffee shops and the like, because the government can't 'afford' enough positions to have them doing something far more useful. Why? Because they don't have the money.

What would be something more useful? If it's really true that people are happy to do something more useful for no extra reward (which you seem to be suggesting - if not, I'm not sure what you're suggesting?), then the Government could get away with creating these skilled jobs for no extra pay.

Unplanned economies are gambles. They are bets, where millions of people are secretly making plans and trying to figure out how they can pull a win out of their ass before someone else does and ruins their chance. With a planned economy you sit everyone down, figure out what is actually wanted, decide who are the best people to address a given want, and have them figure out what they need in order to fulfil those requirements.

There is much planning in our society. And there is just as much a gamble in your proposed society. The difference is that you only have one set of people responsible for planning an entire economy, rather than different specialised groups of people able to independently plan what they want to do themselves.

There are no wasted resources because someone else brought their product to market a few weeks before you did and killed your sales. Less duplication of R&D efforts, because everyone working in a field would be expected to share information and developments. Sure, you get fewer product choices over all, but in theory all can be higher quality because open planning is more likely to go with the better options.

Being first to market often doesn't guarantee a monopoly on sales, or anywhere near that, especially just by a few weeks.

It's not clear to me that everyone working together on a single product is better than lots of groups working independently. It's like saying that rather than having lots of different game companies, we should have every game developer in the world working on just one game, to create the most super game ever.

It should be obvious how flawed this is on several points:
* Beyond a certain point, adding extra people to a single project gives diminishing returns, and it's more efficient to have people working separately.
* People do like choice - not everyone likes the same kind of game, and even within a given genre, people like more than one game.
* It's not clear at all that the one game you get from this would be higher quality than anything else. For example, you may have disagreements about the best way to do a particular thing, and with a single project, the best way might not be the one that's chosen. With independent projects, people have the freedom to try out different ideas - some may such, but you have a chance for better ways to succeed.
http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#34 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4911

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:56 AM

The solution is easy: Rebundle the debts into a "security" bond and sell to banks and investors in Europe, promising high revenues. Then, as European banks shut down, point at them, and demand that the EU does something against their financial crisis.

Oh wait, they already did that 4 years ago, nobody will fall for it again soon...

That leaves plan B:
1. Take up more loans to pay interests
2. War
3. ...?
4. Profit!

#35 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 889

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:02 AM

If we're judging economies on their ability to economize, then capitalism is a complete and utter failure. Where's the cost of using up stores of non-renewable resources in it's equations? Where does reduction in biodiversity fit into it's models? Why are we ok with the fact that we choose to have a poverty class, and choose to have less than 100% employment as a matter of economic policy?

If reducing waste or expenditure is the only criterion, then the best "economy" would be to remain a stone age society, or perhaps go extinct. But I don't think that's a good measure of an economy - this is just a play on words that "economy" has two distinct meanings.

You have to compare like with like - if we have to ways of say producing a set of products, or building a set of things as a society, then we would prefer to choose the method that minimises cost. But if you're saying capitalism is a complete failure, then where is the comparison? Can you point me to a society that achieved the same level of modern technology and products, with less waste?

I don't see that having less than 100% employment is a waste, on the contrary, it's more efficient if you can achieve something with less work.

Note, I'm fully in favour of things like welfare, and there are other examples of things that are better off managed by the state - things don't have to be polarised from one extreme to the other. I just don't believe that _everything_ should be.

Edited by mdwh, 27 November 2012 - 10:24 AM.

http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#36 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 889

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:23 AM

@JTippetts: Wait - are you actually comparing Obama/Democrats to communism? That's not at all the same thing. Both US parties are predominantly capitalist, though both with support for some state funded and managed parts of the economy (Republicans still support state managed child education for example, and try arguing against their state funded/managed military...) Democrat are more "left wing", offering better support for things like welfare and state healthcare, but neither are remotely anything to do with communism.

Edited by mdwh, 27 November 2012 - 10:31 AM.

http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#37 Shippou   Members   -  Reputation: 1668

Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:29 AM

@JTippetts: Wait - are you actually comparing Obama/Democrats to communism? That's not at all the same thing. Both US parties are predominantly capitalist, though both with support for some state funded and managed parts of the economy (Republicans still support state managed child education for example, and try arguing against their state funded/managed military...) Democrat are more "left wing", offering better support for things like welfare and state healthcare, but neither are remotely anything to do with communism.

Communism / Socialism ( almost the same thing ) is one of the core "values" of the Democratic Party.

I would suggest actually researching Marxism / Socialism, and stop assuming they have nothing to do with "left wing" politics .

@ JTippetts - That was a very well written post.

Edited by Shippou, 27 November 2012 - 11:30 AM.

 Reactions To Technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

- Douglas Adams 2002


 


#38 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6991

Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:42 AM

*snip*

This is why we need up-votes in the lounge.
[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#39 Oberon_Command   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1933

Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:45 AM

Communism / Socialism ( almost the same thing ) is one of the core "values" of the Democratic Party.


So communal ownership of the means of production is one of the core values of the Democratic Party? [citation needed]

I would suggest actually researching Marxism / Socialism, and stop assuming they have nothing to do with "left wing" politics .



From the perspective of an outsider, it's the assumption that the Democratic Party has much to do with "left wing" politics that is faulty. Seriously, it's joked up in Canada that the US has no left-wing - just a hard right-wing party and a moderate centrist party. You can probably figure out which party is which.

Edited by Oberon_Command, 27 November 2012 - 11:50 AM.


#40 Kaze   Members   -  Reputation: 948

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:15 PM

The blue dots are almost a picture-perfect portrait of the urban areas. The red dots, conversely, outline the rural. The producers. This election, more than any election I have witnessed in the context of this place, struck fear into the hearts of the producers of this country. We had record voter turnouts, and record new-voter registrations, levels unheard of in any past election.


Are you joking?

Urban areas generate GDP while rural areas receive 20 billion plus in farm subsidies. If you believe food is the only commodity that matters try building a tractor or weather satellite from sand and corn.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS