One more thing. If you were to ask about the military strength of the US in 1935, it wouldn't be a pretty picture. The US didn't have a strong standing army. What the US did have which tipped the scale, however, was a huge amount of factories across the country, which were converted to military facilities for a nation-wide infrastructure development. Fast forward to 2011. China doesn't have the military infrastructure the US has. However, its strength is in an industrial infrastructure, which may be refitted for military production. In short, they're developing the exact same advantage which gave the US an advantage in WW2. Although they don't have the military forces for a blue water navy now, if the time comes when a blue water navy is needed, unless the US can swiftly overwhelm a Chinese military, the Chinese may be able to out-produce the US.
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
The forums have moved!
Click here to use the new forums. Enjoy!
Search options (Page 91 of 190)
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Great Eye
Posts found: 2,251 to 2,275 of 4,748
2,252 25-Aug-2011 19:21:53
Re: A brief explanation of the credit rating... (3 replies, posted in Politics)
This is meant to be funny! Stop taking me seriously! 
2,253 25-Aug-2011 19:14:25
Re: US exaggerating China threat? (35 replies, posted in Politics)
I'm willing to go on the other side of this debate.
First of all, I'd ask what the purpose of Chinese military dominance would be? Aircraft carriers are only useful for a country engaged in intercontinental power projection (the US, separated from the world by two oceans, inherently must engage in power projection, making aircraft carriers an invaluable part of its military structure). China's interest isn't in invading the US directly. Rather, Chinese military expansion is built with the purpose of expanding local hegemony (controlling Taiwan again, reasserting spheres of influence in East Asia). These types of conflicts wouldn't need the same military structure. Emphasis would be placed on well-trained infantry and good aircraft, but a blue water navy isn't necessary for China (but let me emphasize that it's essential for the US in the region).
Second, you're only looking at the symmetrical side of warfare. China's developing at least two forms of asymmetrical warfare which, if perfected, would be devastating to the US.
1: Anti-satellite missiles. China already tested one anti-satellite missile in 2008, successfully destroying a defunct satellite. Now, I'm obviously not entirely sure of the range, so it's possible China's satellites don't have full range over Earth orbit. Otherwise, it's mainly a question of mass production.
Let's start by assuming China can successfully mass-produce anti-satellite missiles capable of shooting down military-grade satellites. What's the effect in combat? The US military flourishes in part due to its strong logistics network. GPS locators, communication systems, spy satellites, full knowledge of weather patterns... these combined tools give the military the information and coordination to pinpoint and destroy targets. The US can use spy satellites to locate enemy troop movements, then launch GPS-guided missiles and bombs to take out key portions of the military force in question. China is building the capability to take down this most important aspect of US military supremacy. I'm not saying this could render the US military useless, but it can curtail a good amount of US strength.
2: H4x0rz. This is the really scary one because it can directly target economic infrastructure. China wouldn't need to step a single soldier in the US to do more damage than the Germans could ever do to the US in two world wars. The Internet is their troop transport.
These tools combined don't mean China will be more powerful than the US. However, they take out one of the most important advantages the US has in long-range force projection. Beyond that, China has advantages that allow it to win regional wars (a RAND Corporation study of US-Chinese military strength in East Asia suggested that China could successfully overwhelm US forces in Taiwan simply because it could throw more less advanced planes than the US forces have ammunition).
There may be other forms of asymmetrical warfare we don't necessarily know about. Hell, it's theoretically possible China could have a Manhattan Project type program going on (I've read at least one article proposing they are developing this type of program using nanotechnology... I can't necessarily defend its credibility, but it's at least something to be considered, even if it's solely hypothetical).
Long story short, though, China isn't building a military meant to invade the US (for now, at least). It doesn't need to do so. If they did need to attack the US directly, cyberwarfare can take care of that.
2,254 24-Aug-2011 20:24:02
Re: Failcup 2011: Heat 3 (69 replies, posted in Universal News)
He forgot what comes after 3, and is now researching the number line to find out what comes next. 
2,255 24-Aug-2011 07:30:31
Re: MilkyWay Round 43 ~!PvC!~ (355 replies, posted in Universal News)
I blame Nolio.
2,256 23-Aug-2011 06:42:12
Re: Attack/OP Countdown (6 replies, posted in Ideas)
Space Amazement's a big issue early in the round.
2,257 22-Aug-2011 21:23:48
Re: English Community 5 or 6 (585 replies, posted in Community)
She's alive!
2,258 22-Aug-2011 19:41:47
Topic: A brief explanation of the credit rating... (3 replies, posted in Politics)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xexh5uq1UBM
I found my new favorite Labor Secretary!
2,259 20-Aug-2011 07:07:30
Re: MilkyWay Round 43 ~!PvC!~ (355 replies, posted in Universal News)
Everyone's a pretender.
2,260 20-Aug-2011 05:07:22
Re: Rbe!! (15 replies, posted in Politics)
> twosidedeath wrote:
>>>>>>so in your first example we have a magical box that spits things out, they drop prices on items to beat the competition. does this box demand a fuel of some sort? lets assume not otherwise there is a production cost already. so now thier competition is out of business, aswell as anyone who supplies those type of stores. but wait. if they have this magical box. what are they wasting time making cash? they can make whatever they want. for free. utopia still pretty solid.
You missed the problem of the whole thing. If a theoretical Microsoft could produce a magical box that spits out everything (or whatever technology we're talking about that eliminates scarcity... you know, whatever is required for your no-price economy to exist), then you're right, there no longer is an economic incentive to control the economy. However, controlling the world's economic sphere would inherently mean Microsoft would have absolutely no problem dominating the political sphere (either by being the most massive lobbyist on the planet or by directly controlling politics). THAT is where the dystopia comes in...
Plus, there will still be some scarcity. Services (everything ranging from haircuts to prostitution) couldn't be duplicated by a little box that spits things out randomly. I would argue that the technology I described above (a molecular manufacturer) would be a prerequisite to the development of fully functioning artificial intelligence... the only thing that could duplicate services. Even then, there would be value in human-powered services (is a robot-created painting nicer than a human-created painting? Could a robot replace a human in prostitution?). The service field would be the expanding field that would still require resources to obtain, requiring the global hegemon Microsoft to still charge prices for goods.
> as a response to your second part, yes scarcity is a big reason why currency and a value system is needed, however with the proper tenchnology scarcity should not be an issue. i think you would also find that people will do quite a bit to sustain a comfortable lifestyle
So... the ONLY circumstance under which you're correct is a circumstance in which technology has reached a point where there is absolutely 0 scarcity whatsoever. So, just for clarification, your stance is "In the off chance that we discover a technology that produces whatever we want at no cost, we could establish a society where prices were meaningless." However, this does not apply except in a society where scarcity is 100% eliminated?
2,261 19-Aug-2011 23:47:54
Re: A thought on how to fix the Market (49 replies, posted in Politics)
You've had my email since last year...
But ah hell, I set up a new one just for IC purposes... [email protected]. There ya go.
You can also find me in IRC pretty much whenever.
2,262 19-Aug-2011 21:00:44
Re: Rbe!! (15 replies, posted in Politics)
Oh, I almost forgot a couple things:
> twosidedeath wrote:
> i understand what you all are saying. most saying there is some sort of supplying issue or production of some sort. aswell with producing cars, a large portion of the production is done by machines and there are often more efficent ways being discovered. it is also projected that there are a limited ammount of desired resources on this planet, projected because currently it is impossible to completely know the exact ammount of any resource.
A good portion of production is done by machines, agreed. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a workforce necessary. Rather, the workforce is transforming to increase its productivity. Humans used to be necessary to perform the menial, repetitive tasks necessary in production. However, like you mentioned, robots are increasingly taking those jobs. Meanwhile, humans are being retooled to oversee the robots, and perform tasks that require more thinking (hence why the US is becoming a service-based economy, not a manufacturing economy). Although machines take on a good portion of tasks, they can't 100% replace humans yet.
2,263 19-Aug-2011 20:12:11
Re: A thought on how to fix the Market (49 replies, posted in Politics)
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> > Little Paul wrote:
> @xeno:
Much of what I want to say about that you find in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
Could you be more specific?
Actually, it's pretty much what Flint said before you decided to ignore it.
If Japan, for example, were to try to be self-sufficient, it would have serious problems. Agriculture wouldn't exactly be friendly to them. The country has little, if any, oil resources of note. In addition, the natural resources necessary to even produce technology (various rare earth metals, for example... ask Little Paul about this one) would be unavailable to the country. Long story short, they'd be back to a pre-industrial era.
Historically, drives toward self-sufficiency have had drastic consequences for the world. European nations in the 1500's subscribed to the theory of mercantilism (self sufficiency, the drive toward being a net exporter). As a result, European nations were driven to search for territory in Africa, Asia, and the Americas to expand their own production base and gain an advantage in the trade field by forcing their colonies to only trade through their overlord. The result: 400 years of European imperialism, the colonization and subjugation of millions of people, and plenty of colonial wars, ranging from the Seven Year's War, American Revolution, War of 1812, the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War... there's quite an extensive list! You see, when people are dead set on the idea that they need to produce everything themselves, and they are unable to efficiently produce everything themselves... their only alternative is to find another nation which can more efficiently produce the resource themselves and conquer that region in order to make it part of "themselves."
Another example is WW2. Japan had an initial drive toward regional imperialism, but nothing expanding to global levels early in the war. Then, in retaliation against Japan's expansion, the US placed an embargo on exports of oil to Japan. Japan had no oil resources of its own, so unless it obtained resources, it was doomed. The result? Japan was forced to switch tactics and directly attack the United States with the hope of securing some access to American oil reserves. Self sufficiency drives lead to resource wars.
Trade fixes this issue. In the current economic climate, Japan still has very little natural resources of its own. However, it's probably become stronger in the global political arena than it ever was during WW2. Japan is able to import its supply of rice, wheat, meats, steel, rare earth metals, and other materials. Japan can then use its skills to do what it does best (manufacturing) to produce resources for global export. By manufacturing for the world, Japan is able to take advantage of economies of scale (the fact that the more goods any particular factory makes, the less the expenses will be for that particular good at that particular plant, up to its maximum capacity) to maximize its production. In contrast, if other nations were to try and be self-sufficient in this area, they would each need to build their own smaller, less efficient factory to produce those goods.
Japan has been able to become a global economic center, despite having hardly any natural resources, because Japan can focus on cultivating the resources which are most productive in Japan (its manufacturing base and a well-educated population), rather than attempting to obtain production facilities in resources which Japan does not possess. I would say this has allowed Japan to be more powerful today than it ever was during WW2, even considering that Japan has only a skeleton of a military.
From a perspective of pure economics, let's look at a theoretical example to demonstrate this issue:
Assume two countries exist, Oiltopia and Carland. Carland has a factory in place which would be able to supply cars for 100 people. Oiltopia has easily accessible oil reserves able to supply oil for 100 people. That is, Carland has a comparative advantage in producing cars, while Oiltopia has a comparative advantage in producing oil. If these nations were interconnected through trade, Carland could exchange cars for oil to supply both populations.
Alternatively, let's assume Oiltopia wanted to produce its own cars, stop trading with Carland, and become self-sufficient. Oiltopia would need to invest cash into building a factory in Oiltopia to build 50 cars. The development costs money. Then Oiltopia would need to train people in car manufacturing who previously had no experience in the industry. That costs money. The final factory won't be able to take advantage of the economies of scale of the Carland factory, having larger fixed costs... that will make Oiltopia's cars more expensive.
Once Oiltopia actually gets that going, we now have a system where, combined, Oiltopia and Carland could produce 150 cars, but only have the demand for producing 100 cars. The result, then, is that Carland's factory will only produce at half the rate it normally would, driving up the cost of its cars as well.
Meanwhile, Carland will need to start supplying its own oil. Even if Carland has oil resources that are as easily accessible as Oiltopia's resources, Carland would need to invest the cash to find oil and extract it (that costs money), and they would need to train people into the new positions. Just like with the car factory, Oiltopia would have to leave half its oil production idle due to a lack of demand, and both countries would see a rise in prices of oil due to decreasing economies of scale on both parts.
Both of these assume ideal scenarios for self-sufficiency, however. In reality, Carland will most likely have oil resources that, if available, aren't as easily accessible as Oiltopia's resources, driving up its own costs of oil production. Both Oiltopia and Carland would have problems establishing new training systems for industries with which they aren't familiar. In effect, both countries will need to reinvent the wheel. Meanwhile, their counterpart would have a fully matured industry that could have provided those resources, but now just sits idle with half its production going to waste.
This scenario explanation didn't even get into the issue of natural resources (such as rare earth metals), which distribute comparative advantages to nations that can't easily be duplicated (although it demonstrates my point, manufacturing is probably a terrible example because it's much easier to build a new factory than it is to find a new energy source).
Little Paul, does that sufficiently summarize your argument?
2,264 19-Aug-2011 18:44:55
Re: Rbe!! (15 replies, posted in Politics)
From my post #6:
> The only way a society would work in which everything was free would be if by some method, all goods and services could be produced in a way which required no effort on the part of any human in the production process, using resources which are widely available. Now, I've read of a couple technologies (specifically, nanotechnology-driven molecular manufacturing and artificial intelligence) which have the possibility of creating such a system. Fair enough. However, I'd warn a couple things:
1: Don't count your eggs before they hatch. Let's see what the technology actually brings before jumping on it as our saving grace.
2: New technologies tend to bring plenty of new problems along with their new solutions.
3: Even if some amazing product existed which could produce everything we wanted at dirt cheap prices... someone would have to have built it... a business owner, an inventor, etc.
Let's assume Microsoft built a molecular manufacturer (a theoretical machine which could rearrange atoms to turn ordinary items into whatever you wanted). The first three things they'd do? First, they'd grab the patent on the machine so nobody else could invent it legally. Second, they'd start mass producing those machines for their own factories. Third, they'd flood the market with dirt cheap goods, careful to protect their own monopoly on the machine itself. It's kind of hard for even an industrial farm to compete with a little box that produced food from dirt... so pretty much any business that sold goods would die.
The result? Microsoft would be able to control every resource on the planet, because it just bankrupted all competition.
How's that utopia of yours looking now?
That should at least be a sufficient response to your technology issue.
In addition, I want to make one additional note regarding something you just mentioned. Have you ever considered just how inefficient "first come first serve" is, with regards to the concert issue?
Let's take, as an example, Black Friday sales. You have 50 people waiting in line at a Best Buy for 8 hours in order to catch the next day's sales (some people will be waiting for up to 3 days in order to be first). That is 400 hours of people's lives spent pretty much standing there.
Let's assume each of these people have minimum wage jobs, at $6.15 per hour (this is a very low estimate because we can safely assume that the vast majority of people standing in line to buy electronics would have an income high enough for some discretionary spending). That's $2460 of lost productivity by these people who are instead just standing in a line. Even if these people would not be working at the particular hours designated, their leisure time would have value to it. However, rather than using that time to their fullest... the people are... standing... in... a... line.
Now, in all fairness, the scenario described above doesn't represent that inefficiency because someone could avoid the line by paying more (all they have to do is shop the day before, the day after, or otherwise just avoid the sale). This is actually a pretty nice system, in part because people are given multiple options based on their resources (someone making $500 an hour should consider their time valuable enough to avoid lines, whereas someone making minimum wage may be more willing to spend 8 hours to save $400 on an item).
What you're describing, though, is a scenario in which the line can't be avoided. You either participate in the line or you don't get what you want. That means everyone, from the person making minimum wage to the $500 an hour lawyer, must waste hours upon hours of their potentially productive time standing in line. The more items there are which have maximum prices, the bigger the lines become, and the greater the loss in productivity for people who are waiting in the line.
2,265 19-Aug-2011 07:18:55
Re: old hof (3 replies, posted in Questions)
It's gone! You're a wreck!
Tears on your pillow! Can't bring it back!
Na na na na na na na!
2,267 18-Aug-2011 01:54:16
Re: EoR Awards Mw Round 42 (82 replies, posted in Universal News)
Yay! I won one! 
2,268 18-Aug-2011 01:34:18
Re: Rbe!! (15 replies, posted in Politics)
Hmm... that's an interesting thought...
Remember what I noted regarding the 3 important traits of currency (divisibility, ease of transport, and store of value)? A digital currency is definitely more easily divisible than anything else we can come up with, and it's definitely easier to transport. What I'm worried about is its state as a stable storage of value.
The obvious problem is hackers. A digital currency may be susceptible to counterfeiting in the form of hackers manipulating the currency system. Now, there's plenty of counter-arguments against this... I'm not saying this is a reason to reject a digital currency... but it's at least a worry in the system.
2,269 17-Aug-2011 23:54:26
Re: Rbe!! (15 replies, posted in Politics)
Okay... you didn't say that at the start. In fact... I'm looking at your first post, and I see absolutely nothing that indicts the idea of cost... rather than the idea of currency as a medium of exchange. And considering that the term "resource-based economy" has had 2 completely different definitions on these forums by the people who advocated it... I'm starting to think the word is pretty much meaningless...
Anyway, what's wrong with everything being free?
There's two simple problems:
On the supply side... if I'm a car producer that spends 40 hours a week building cars... and nobody's paying me for my cars... I'm no better off than someone who's sleeping in a corner, then waking up to go to a store and grab a houseboat. In fact, I'm actually worse off, because the time I'm spending actually producing goods takes away from the time I can spend enjoying a houseboat. The result? I'm going to go home and enjoy my new houseboat! To hell with producing anything!
On the demand side... if everything is free, there's no incentive toward conservation. I can grab the most high-quality food, then go to the doctor to liposuction the fat the food produced, then grab a houseboat, crash the houseboat into someone else's houseboat, grab another houseboat, an ditch that houseboat because I don't want to repaint a scratch on it. I could buy whatever I want, whenever I want, with no foreseen cost to me.
So everyone, in theory, should be able to get everything they want whenever they want...
The problem? As of right now... resources don't actually reflect that reality. Most every resource you can think of has some factor which limits its ability to be produced in enough quantity to fulfill the wants and needs of everyone who would want it. Those goods which could be stretched to accommodate all people... are generally goods which, all things being equal, people would not want (we could probably produce enough food to feed everyone in the world, but that food would be rice, relatively low on people's list of foods they would want to eat forever).
Prices offer a method to ration resources to people (those who are able to earn the most income are able to use that income to purchase the most resources). If resources are scarce, it means some form of rationing would have to exist. Without price-based rationing, the alternative is generally force-determined rationing (i.e., Bolshevik-style command economy).
The only way a society would work in which everything was free would be if by some method, all goods and services could be produced in a way which required no effort on the part of any human in the production process, using resources which are widely available. Now, I've read of a couple technologies (specifically, nanotechnology-driven molecular manufacturing and artificial intelligence) which have the possibility of creating such a system. Fair enough. However, I'd warn a couple things:
1: Don't count your eggs before they hatch. Let's see what the technology actually brings before jumping on it as our saving grace.
2: New technologies tend to bring plenty of new problems along with their new solutions.
3: Even if some amazing product existed which could produce everything we wanted at dirt cheap prices... someone would have to have built it... a business owner, an inventor, etc.
Let's assume Microsoft built a molecular manufacturer (a theoretical machine which could rearrange atoms to turn ordinary items into whatever you wanted). The first three things they'd do? First, they'd grab the patent on the machine so nobody else could invent it legally. Second, they'd start mass producing those machines for their own factories. Third, they'd flood the market with dirt cheap goods, careful to protect their own monopoly on the machine itself. It's kind of hard for even an industrial farm to compete with a little box that produced food from dirt... so pretty much any business that sold goods would die.
The result? Microsoft would be able to control every resource on the planet, because it just bankrupted all competition.
How's that utopia of yours looking now?
2,270 17-Aug-2011 17:52:45
Re: Rbe!! (15 replies, posted in Politics)
This again!
Short answer: No.
Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I have a few problems with this.
First of all, if currency didn't exist, trade would exist in the form of either one of two systems: exchange of some sort of units which represented resources, or exchange in the resources themselves.
Let me start with the problem of trade in using resources themselves. Imagine a town with 10 people, each one producing only one good.
Adam grows apples.
Bob builds boats.
Carl builds crayons.
David makes dinner (he owns a small restaurant).
Edward does haircuts (Edward Scissorhands).
Dan mines diamonds.
Problem #1:
Problem 1 is simple pragmatism: How will each of these people bring their resources to trade? For example, is Carl supposed to bring 40 million crayons in order to buy a boat? Is Adam supposed to wheel around an apple cart every time he brings the family out for dinner?
Problem #2:
One trait of currency that makes us like it is that it won't degrade as easily as some units of value. Let's take Adam here, for example. Adam is going to have one problem with his orchard. The apples will only grow in particular seasons of the year. How will Adam have the resources to survive when his orchard doesn't produce for the season? He could try to keep spare apples for the year... except that apples rot. That would kill any trade value of those apples. So his next strategy would be to sell off apples and buy someone else's goods for value storage. However, most resources require maintenance of one form or another. Boats can require upkeep even if unused. Crayons can melt. Long story short, holding resources themselves would see perpetual degradation of savings. So much for that whole "retirement" thing you were planning!
Problem #3:
Bob wants to go out for dinner. However, Bob only builds boats, which are nearly 100 times more valuable than a single dinner. How does Bob engage in the trade? In a currency-based economy, this wouldn't be a problem because currency can be divided up through change. Giving someone 1/3000 of a boat wouldn't be at all pragmatic... it would require tearing up a boat... which mean destroying its value.
These first three problems, a transportable medium of exchange, value storage, and divisibility, are the 3 most basic reasons why currency exists. There are very few resources that can even have 2 of these qualities.
Now let's consider the second possible way a resource-based economy would work: one in which certificates were issued which represented units of value (this has been proposed in this forum, so I'll preempt it with my pragmatism argument against it). For example, if I produced apples, I could exchange said apples to some storage facility in exchange for units representing the number of apples I produce. I could exchange those apple certificates for a boat, haircut, etc.
Some resources, however, only have a value upon inspection. What's the first thing a good shopper does when they're looking for melons? They start lightly tapping on each melon, or doing some other procedure to figure out which melons are still ripe. Every melon is different in size, shape, and ripeness, each of which will affect the value of that melon.
Most resources have this type of problem. Two restaurants may both serve hamburgers, but they'll have a distinction in value if one is fast food-produced and the other is flame broiled. Two diamonds will have vastly different values based on otherwise subtle differences in appearance. Every wine fanatic knows the quality, and thus the value, of a wine is based on the production date and location, but can be changed in value depending on other factors, such as the storage method. The list goes on.
Currency does have an inherent value to it. As a storage of value containing the 3 qualities mentioned above, it performs a service for producers and consumers. However, it only performs a service as long as there is stability in the institutions which support that currency (the government in question). Notice how the highest valued currencies are the ones with the most stable governments (US, Europe, etc)? In short, a holder of currency isn't holding a valueless item. Its value is derived from the institutions supporting it, with the value being a direct result of the utility of being a medium of exchange.
2,271 14-Aug-2011 22:54:05
Re: A thought on how to fix the Market (49 replies, posted in Politics)
> Einstein wrote:
> To Zarf:
There are computers hooked up to the main servers for the indexes that are run by not day traders, not hour traders, not minute, but microsecond traders.
They push the values of stocks up as much as they can with algorithms designed to detect more closely what the market may take, or designed to understand other peoples algorithms. There is decent evidence that such systems can indeed prop up a market item against the actual trend. Oil has been proof of this, as might be gold to a limited extent (Though now that I have talked to a large number of conservatives I understand why the price still grows... they are buying as much as they can, and hoarding it for the collapse of our nation, at least in my region this is so).
These companies that use these super fast trading computers rarely fail to make a profit. Down or up, they make money. They also in my view force prices up on a large number of issues and with them slowed we could see artificially high prices come down to normal.
No, you're misunderstanding my question:
Assume, Flint, that you were the computer. What is the process which you take in your trades which result in the price being driven up and you walking out with a profit? What would trades by this computer look like which would distinguish them from day traders, which would make them a unique problem?
2,272 13-Aug-2011 19:07:12
Re: SPORE! Anyone play? If so... help! (14 replies, posted in Questions)
Vacation... FINALLY!
2,273 13-Aug-2011 17:59:51
Re: SPORE! Anyone play? If so... help! (14 replies, posted in Questions)
Got it working!
It's fun... one of my favorite parts is that your random species created will show up in other people's games... so if anyone sees a Zarqixxi Empire... yeah, that's me.
2,274 13-Aug-2011 17:55:47
Re: When is it Obama's economy for Democrats and Liberals? (48 replies, posted in Politics)
@You_Fool
1: First, let me make the assumption that you're right and the two-party system is inherently an obstacle to economic solutions. For their proposal to be successful, the proposal would need the following steps to take place:
Step 1: Legal barriers to a multiparty system are removed.
Step 2: A new election takes place.
Step 3: The new election results in a multiparty representation.
Step 4: The multiparty representation passes economic policies that fix the economy.
Let me go through each of these steps to indicate the problems faced.
Step 1: There are a number of legal barriers one would need to overcome. We're talking about everything from repealing restrictions on campaign finance law to probably reversing winner takes all results in elections. Constitutional amendments require 3/4 approval from the states to pass... so even if the idea is accepted... it's going to at least take a couple years to scrounge up that 3/4 approval.
I'll be easy on you an say it takes 2 years to rally the votes through to get the amendment going... trust me, I'm doing you a favor with this timeline.
Step 2: Elections for the Presidency happen every 4 years, House every 2, and 1/3 of the Senate every 6 years. Okay, so the '12 Presidential election won't be affected by the amendment... but you will be able to catch the midterm elections!
So... assuming you get the amendment passed in 2 years, the next soonest election you could influence would be the '14 midterms.
Step 3: You are making the assumption here that the election will automatically result in a multiparty system when legal barriers are removed. Now, you could theoretically be correct... but the thing is, Republicans and Democrats haven't built themselves as the same types of political parties that your multiparty systems are familiar with. They aren't issue-based parties. The parties are more fluid, having a general philosophy, but having an interest in maintaining broad coalitions. That's why you see the prevalence of moderates like McCain, Lieberman, etc., in their respective parties, despite having plenty with which to disagree from the mainstream unit.
It's likely, then, that more people will still embrace the Republican and Democratic parties, even with the ability to accept the Libertarian, Green, or other parties.
In addition, the prevalence of two parties means that many existing parties don't have the foundation to be challengers because they're issue-focused... which means they can't be broad enough parties to win over a large number of supporters. I'm not saying it may be impossible... but it would take time.
Step 4:
I want to flag this issue, because this is also my a priori complaint with two's argument here. The multiparty system, just like the two-party system, is still a democratic process. In the end, it requires the voters to listen to the list of prospective candidates' arguments, and choose the candidate which they believe will enact the policies which best shape their country. In other words, it falls on the voters.
Now, this thread is trying to discuss that very question: "What should fix the economy?" When trying to analyze the economics behind the problem, twoisdeath and CrazyOne are silent. Remember... it's the voters who, in the end, are responsible for electing the people who establish the policies. If the voters don't know what they believe will fix the economy... then the voting itself is meaningless in exacting any change in representation which would result in effective policymaking.
Long story short, you guys are going it the wrong way. Policymaking should be a question of "what do I want," followed by a question of "how do I get there." Either twoisdeath and CrazyOne are engaging in answering the second first without knowing what they want... or all they really want is the multiparty system, which means they're being disingenuous.
You can have your multiparty system debate... but figure out the economic solution first.
Oh, right... one more problem:
Look at the timeline I set up there. Those are pretty conservative estimates. That means, if you adhere to the idea that this is your solution, you've pretty much gone with a "screw the economy until about 2015 at the earliest (this assuming a multiparty system can quickly establish a coalition to pass legislation... also unlikely).
This is under the quickest of circumstances. A more realistic interpretation would say that you've left the economy to die for another 6 years without even examining the economic part of the solution. I don't need to get into a sad story of the results... there's plenty of them. What I can say, though... is that it would be pretty much on you... that's your well-thought out system, after all!
2,275 11-Aug-2011 03:32:53
Re: How Many... (7 replies, posted in General)
*disregards the post above*
Posts found: 2,251 to 2,275 of 4,748
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Great Eye
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.