10-12-2004 22:42									#271
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Arrian That's the dream, anyway. I'm rather uncertain that it would work out as well as you think. -Arrian

Well I have my doubts as to whether paying corporations, not for the goods that they produce, but so that they don't move a factory, or so that they don't polute our water, air etc... isn't going to work. In fact, I know it won't, because that's what we have now. It doesn't work and it's a great injustice.

	10-12-2004 22:42									#272
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 1) Is the return on government research as good as the return on the free market's research? I honestly don't know the answer (actually, I doubt there is a definite answer); and

They compete in the free market, now. I think they can do it just as well as any corporation. after all, in non-government corporations, the R&D employees, just like their middle management, are just salary-driven, in the economical sense. Wrt remarkble genious and invention, as long as it is not stifled by dogma, it will flourish just as well in non-profit conditions as it would in profit driven conditions.

quote: 2) To what degree is the research driven by people who know they can leave after a while and nab a lucrative job at some private company's R&D lab?

uh, why would they want to? often, these jobs ARE the most lucrative.

	10-12-2004 22:45									#273
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Flubber I don't say a communist system won't produce ANY innovation, I just think it will be much less. The government employees that create things . . . can they get bonuses, advancement to higher paying jobs or lucrative private offers ? If they can, they are still in a capitalist society despite working for the government. The communist society I am considering is one in which the MOST an innovator might get is the respect of their peers since financial incentives are not permitted as they might create an upper class

I think you would be suprised to know how many researchers actually like their job, and don't just do it for the money.

	10-12-2004 22:47									#274
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious So you admit that your bottom line is to make profit. You have no true interest in benefiting society.

Actually I have an interest in both profit and benefitting society. But we are agreed on the operation which should result in additional natural gas production . .. thats a benefit, is it not?? All the negotiation is about is the level of MONEY each side pays and gets. Since both sides are capitalist corporations and no worker will get paid any more or less directly as a result of this negotiation, I would expect you to wish me well with a blessing such as.

" May your profits be large and your pollution minimal"

	10-12-2004 22:49									#275
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Good for Cuba, that's excellent.

One advantage to a government-controlled research program is that you can focus it to work on a few things you find particularly important. In that regard, it can be considered superior to capitalism (since lots of private sector innovation could be called frivolous). I'll grant that.

-Arrian

	10-12-2004 22:49									#276
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Actually I have an interest in both profit and benefitting society. But we are agreed on the operation which should result in additional natural gas production . .. thats a benefit, is it not?? All the negotiation is about is the level of MONEY each side pays and gets. Since both sides are capitalist corporations and no worker will get paid any more or less directly as a result of this negotiation, I would expect you to wish me well with a blessing such as. " May your profits be large and your pollution minimal"

Maybe you don't know the economic theory behind this. There is a optimal production of the product. That is where the social cost of the polution is equal to the social benefit of the product. Companies don't care about that. They only care about maximising profits. That's why you can't just leave the decision to them.

	10-12-2004 22:50									#277
	Suffering from ads?

quote: uh, why would they want to? often, these jobs ARE the most lucrative.

Ok, and why is that? Because if they weren't, they wouldn't attract the best & the brightest, would they? Probably not (some would still do it, but many others wouldn't). That's a very capitalistic thing.

-Arrian

	10-12-2004 22:51									#278
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: That's why you can't just leave the decision to them.

Indeed, and we don't.

-Arrian

	10-12-2004 22:54									#279
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I would say paying them not to do it is not much different. You are not making the social cost equal to the social benefit. The social benefit is still less. And that's bad

	10-12-2004 22:54									#280
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Ok, and why is that? Because if they weren't, they wouldn't attract the best & the brightest, would they? Probably not (some would still do it, but many others wouldn't). That's a very capitalistic thing. -Arrian

But you see, "lucrative" doesn't just mean money. Besides, this isn't the point. The point is "can communism/government develop new technology". I say, yes it can, and it can do so very well .

	10-12-2004 22:56									#281
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I think you would be suprised to know how many researchers actually like their job, and don't just do it for the money.

NO I know many researchers that love pure research.

BUT

I think YOU would be suprised at how many regular folks out there come up with a great idea and develop it to make a buck. I'm talking the regular working joes. Financial incentives matter.


It also matters when it comes to productivity but thats a whole other topic

	10-12-2004 22:57									#282
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I agree it isn't just money. One of the things I've been looking for from Kid (and/or Che, once he joined the discussion) is what type of incentives a communist society would offer top performers. Obviously not money - or not a lot of money anyway, wealth disparity being a bad thing. So what, then? And if it's Time, well, we all know that's money Seriously, a higher salary in the current system can allow you to retire earlier... or you could negotiate part-time status.

I'm honestly curious about incentives under communism, Az. And I'm furthermore curious to see how they avoid somehow antithetical to the system itself.

-Arrian

	10-12-2004 22:59									#283
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Flubber NO I know many researchers that love pure research. BUT I think YOU would be suprised at how many regular folks out there come up with a great idea and develop it to make a buck. I'm talking the regular working joes. Financial incentives matter. It also matters when it comes to productivity but thats a whole other topic

They will get an incentive. It just won't be as large.

	10-12-2004 23:00									#284
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Flubber I think YOU would be suprised at how many regular folks out there come up with a great idea and develop it to make a buck. I'm talking the regular working joes. Financial incentives matter.

But we live in a capitalist society. Of course people are going to act that way when it's advantageous to do so. If we loped off the arm of anyone who invetned something, you'd find inventions drop off pretty quickly. Socialism/communism won't do away with rewarding people for work/innovation/etc. It will just do so in a way that doesn't end up leading to a stratified society.

	10-12-2004 23:02									#285
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Arrian I agree it isn't just money. One of the things I've been looking for from Kid (and/or Che, once he joined the discussion) is what type of incentives a communist society would offer top performers. Obviously not money - or not a lot of money anyway, wealth disparity being a bad thing. So what, then? And if it's Time, well, we all know that's money Seriously, a higher salary in the current system can allow you to retire earlier... or you could negotiate part-time status. I'm honestly curious about incentives under communism, Az. And I'm furthermore curious to see how they avoid somehow antithetical to the system itself. -Arrian

I would like to see teams working piece work where possible. After they reach a certain goal they get time off. That way you can decentralize a lot of the decision making and people will have incentive.

	10-12-2004 23:02									#286
	Put an end to popups!

How che? What reward will encourage someone to do something beneficial to society but at the same time not create a social or economic strata?

	10-12-2004 23:04									#287
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Maybe you don't know the economic theory behind this. There is a optimal production of the product. That is where the social cost of the polution is equal to the social benefit of the product. Companies don't care about that. They only care about maximising profits. That's why you can't just leave the decision to them.

Actually your theory will fall down a bit here since there is a net continent wide pollution decrease as natural gas is used instead of either oil or coal. Natural gas is "cleaner" by wide wide margins.

So we have the happier situation that the more our company produces and the MORE PROFIT, the less pollution there is on a North American continent. Now each well means my particular company pollutes a little more but I think you would accept that. Also my company is selling its oil projects to focus on natural gas.

After all a communist government would accept 10 units of pollution as an acceptable cost for producing something that can reduce pollution by 2000 units.


So

MORE PROFITS

and LESS POLLUTION

	10-12-2004 23:07									#288
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Japher How che? What reward will encourage someone to do something beneficial to society but at the same time not create a social or economic strata?

There's social recognition: you could get a medal, have a day named in your honor, a park, a street, you could be bumped on the list for better housing as it becomes available, etc. The praise of your peers is a great motivator. There's also the pride in creating something new, etc. It's not like people never invented anything until there was a monetary benefit, you know. We never would have gotten to capitalism if that were the case. We'd be running around eating anything which didn't get away fast enough, since we'd never have inveted the technique of throwing a rock.

	10-12-2004 23:08									#289
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Actually your theory will fall down a bit here since there is a net continent wide pollution decrease as natural gas is used instead of either oil or coal. Natural gas is "cleaner" by wide wide margins.

But you are producing natural gas to maximize your profit, not because it produces less polution. Now you should be able to produce the same amount of polution cost free as a coal burning corporation, but that doesn't mean that you should be able to produce as much as you want.

	10-12-2004 23:08									#290
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

That's true Flubber, but the idea is to optimize a process to reduce polution and increase output... not replace the process altogether like you did. Though, it is a solution that should not automatically be ruled out.

	10-12-2004 23:14									#291
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Well, you see, Arrian, that's not really the point. My point is first, and foremost, abolishing of the principle of the supermacy of the free market as an axiom. Thus, IMO, under suitable technological conditions, a fascist ( in the theoretical meaning ) society would outperform economically a free-market society. With this axiom abolished, one can proceed to determine the best way to distribute the wealth created by a system.

What I argue for is a centralized technocratic system that is a democracy. Wages vary, outside controls on government industry by classical government regulations remain, yet, supply and demand is centralized, and value is assigned not by pure wants, but by needs that have the wants calculated into them. So, for example, the demand for a product will not be seen as pure desire of it, but seen as the true need for the product, with the desire of it included in the calculation. (We're, of course, talking about demand that needs to be supplied. ) However, this will not be static, and will be decided democratically. This is possible for many ages, and the only aspect of it that is technology-aided, is the centralization, and the application of it for larger societies.

As time and technology will advance, it will be possible, at some point, to transfer our economy into a pure energy economy.

Generally, a very important thing that I think we're lacking in our society, is a true equality of opportunity, brought on by various conditions during upbringing. This can be only solved by a 100% death tax, and plentiful facilities in education and upbringing.

	10-12-2004 23:14									#292
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara But we live in a capitalist society. Of course people are going to act that way when it's advantageous to do so. If we loped off the arm of anyone who invetned something, you'd find inventions drop off pretty quickly. Socialism/communism won't do away with rewarding people for work/innovation/etc. It will just do so in a way that doesn't end up leading to a stratified society.

Thats the rub . . How? Every society I have ever heard tell of has ended up with some people that rule and some that are ruled. Start people out in ANY scenario and someone will end up with wealth or some symbol of status. I'm betting the best warrior/hunter would always end up with a better horse etc. in the amerindian groups.

I've gone round on this with kid and I don't see how you PREVENT wealth accumulation. You can end or limit wage disparities etc but pretty soon you get a guy selling crafts he makes, or shovelling driveways, or lawn services. He uses that to get a better car or a nicer house or get the best tutor for his daughter. Some of the folks in his neighborhood drink and smoke and accumulate next to nothing .

Won't one person get richer? How do you prevent this? Do you even want to prevent this? Can they pass on that wealth to their offspring or would this be something undesirable

	10-12-2004 23:20									#293
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Can they pass on that wealth to their offspring or would this be something undesirable

No, there's be an inheritence tax on capital. Personal items, of course, should be passed on.

	10-12-2004 23:21									#294
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Flubber I'm betting the best warrior/hunter would always end up with a better horse etc. in the amerindian groups.

I don't want to step on Che, but the best hunter should get the best horse, because that's the most productive way. I don't see how you go from there to justifying that there should be such huge disparities in wealth.

	10-12-2004 23:23									#295
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious But you are producing natural gas to maximize your profit, not because it produces less polution. Now you should be able to produce the same amount of polution cost free as a coal burning corporation, but that doesn't mean that you should be able to produce as much as you want.

Again a contradiction since EVERY bit of natural gas produced replaces a dirtier power source, lessening pollution. Limiting natural gas producers to some level of aggregate pollution would be STUPID.

It would be more sensible to look at the net effects and say something like " another million cubic feet of gas has a pollution effect of 10 and will replace coal fired burners, the burning and mining of which has a pollution effect of 200. Therefore we should allow more natural gas"


Also you limit by corporation is silly. Our organization has 140 corporations .

Kid you have no idea about environmental regulation and probably have no idea about the idea of looking at cumulative effects and the net effect of an activity.

On your logic you would deny the bus company a new bus if it was going over some limit, forgetting that now 300 fewer cars need make the commute into downtown

	10-12-2004 23:24									#296
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I don't want to step on Che, but the best hunter should get the best horse, because that's the most productive way. I don't see how you go from there to justifying that there should be such huge disparities in wealth.

If you're hunting with scoped rifles, it don't matter.

	10-12-2004 23:26									#297
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara No, there's be an inheritence tax on capital. Personal items, of course, should be passed on.

Well since there would be little benefit to HAVING capital since there are no available investments, wuldn't all the wealth be personal items like a nice car, an upgraded house, diamonds, antiques etc etc.

	10-12-2004 23:28									#298
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Again a contradiction since EVERY bit of natural gas produced replaces a dirtier power source, lessening pollution. Limiting natural gas producers to some level of aggregate pollution would be STUPID. It would be more sensible to look at the net effects and say something like " another million cubic feet of gas has a pollution effect of 10 and will replace coal fired burners, the burning and mining of which has a pollution effect of 200. Therefore we should allow more natural gas" Also you limit by corporation is silly. Our organization has 140 corporations . Kid you have no idea about environmental regulation and probably have no idea about the idea of looking at cumulative effects and the net effect of an activity. On your logic you would deny the bus company a new bus if it was going over some limit, forgetting that now 300 fewer cars need make the commute into downtown

There is no theoretical backing for what you are saying. Charging people for how much polution they create gives a "proper" incentive for companies to produce an effecient amount. Just charging specific companies based on how the produce the polution doesn't make any sense at all. You are the one who is just making this stuff up. You need to learn some of the theories, or you have no justification for what you are claiming.

	10-12-2004 23:30									#299
	Increase the size of your Attachments

So I shouldn't produce a device if producing it creates 1 unit of pollution even if the device prevents 20,000 units?

That silly

	10-12-2004 23:34									#300
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Well since there would be little benefit to HAVING capital since there are no available investments, wuldn't all the wealth be personal items like a nice car, an upgraded house, diamonds, antiques etc etc.

You're asking me to design a society. I've lived for sixteen years now without a car, so I don't see them the same way others do. I look at them as a luxery, not a necessity. I don't see why the house should be inherited by children, but definately be a widow/er, should they want to remain, or the community could make an offer so the house might go to someone who could use it better.

On the other hand, keeping a home in a family helps peole feel like they have a home, roots, place, which is important to most people psychologically. I would say it depends on the needs of the community and how they want to handle the issue, ultimately