SMAC: Gaian super-efficiency
Ex Mudder
quickly went to green democracy, and was building children's
creches.
Then I went and paid more attention to what efficiency does.
a +8 efficency is absolutely absurd, and utterly useless in the
demo. I then decided to try planned democracy and found that,
near the end of the game, my pop 6 cities with trade pacts and
terraforming had 1 whole energy loss to efficency. Switching to
a green economy (increasing efficiency by 4) changed nothing.
According to the advances concepts, every 4 efficiency roughly
doubles / halves your energy loss due to efficiency.
The point I found was that the Gaians +2 effiency was
effectively wasted, at least in the Demo.
Now I would like to solicit opinions: what would be an equal
trade off to customise the Gaians? I've started playing Gaians
with an based efficieny of 0 and morale of +1 and having a much
easier time. But is 2 efficiency for 2 morale an even trade?
--
Guido den Broeder
anything. Read the alpha.txt file.
Ex Mudder <74640...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in article
<uHwRPkJP#GA....@nih2naac.prod2.compuserve.com>...
SnowFire
--
-SnowFire
Webmaster of The Mindworm, Chiron's First Strategy & Tactics Magazine
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/7217/smac/
Haha, funny. No. Efficiency is waaaaaaaaay better than Morale, IMHO.
Morale can be corrected with command centers and similar devices;
Efficiency is an evil thief of not only energy but happiness in your
cities, especially on the higher levels, that can't be fixed with anything
other than CC's and social engineering. I'd say that Efficiency is one of
the most important stats in the game, at least the way I play- I hate
founding a new city and finding that its first citizen is a drone, and I
need to move a pre-built police unit in with the colony pod if I want any
sort of quick early production and growth.
Also, I believe that over +4 Efficiency does help you, check out the
formulas they use to compute energy loss.
By the way, as I recall you had an excellent Anti-Scientology site on the
net, but I checked it again awhile ago, and I got a 404. It move
somewhere, or you just stop?
CurtAdams
> In my first few games of the SMAC Demo, playing Gaian, I
>quickly went to green democracy, and was building children's
>creches.
> Then I went and paid more attention to what efficiency does.
>a +8 efficency is absolutely absurd, and utterly useless in the
>demo. I then decided to try planned democracy and found that,
>near the end of the game, my pop 6 cities with trade pacts and
>terraforming had 1 whole energy loss to efficency. Switching to
>a green economy (increasing efficiency by 4) changed nothing.
>According to the advances concepts, every 4 efficiency roughly
>doubles / halves your energy loss due to efficiency.
> The point I found was that the Gaians +2 effiency was
>effectively wasted, at least in the Demo.
Not at all. You don't have to build and maintain creches
and you can more easily afford efficiency knocks like police
state. I tried police state once with the UN. Ick.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
Andrew R. Gillett
> I tried police state once with the UN.
I thought the UN wasn't allowed to use Police State.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
long double double_long;
Ex Mudder
site on the net, but I checked it again awhile ago, and I got a
404. It move somewhere, or you just stop?<
I'm contemplating my third surgery in a year and don't have the
energy to fight my old ISP Best Internet (aka Verio) or the
Clams, who will likely get any account deleted if I use it to put
the pages back up.
Hopefully I'll be back, eventually.
--
Ex Mudder
use, say, planned economy + democracy for +4 growth, and still
manage to have excellent efficiency.<
That's what I do play. Unfortunately, if I want to be able to
move my %'s past 50/50 without losses I need to have a green
economy. I like Green Democracy, it is just rather pointless in
the early game.
--
Ex Mudder
IMHO. Morale can be corrected with command centers and similar
devices<
If your faction's morale drops below -1 (if you choose Wealth
in social engineering, for example) the positive modifiers for
morale get cut in half. Your commandos are only as useful as
their veterans.
Switching to a +1 morale lets you choose wealth (or even
eudaimonia) without sacrificing combat capability. W/o that
change, you'd pretty much have to depend on native units in
combat - and your poor morale means your non-native units get
crunched by mindworms. I THINK that the +2 morale of a cheche
will offset this penalty, but only for units defending in that
city.
--
K. Laisathit
SnowFire <snowball...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Also, I believe that over +4 Efficiency does help you, check out the
>formulas they use to compute energy loss.
That's my impression as well. I think the formula is:
distance x energy / (64 - (4 - efficiency) x 8)
If you have -4 efficiency, anything outside your capital is
lost. But with +8 efficiency, the denominator is 96 - effectively
reducing the loss by half.
There is another angle to this. Playing Gaian permits you to
use, say, planned economy + democracy for +4 growth, and still
manage to have excellent efficiency. Throw in Children's Creche
and your bases are always booming, paradigm economy and enjoying
10% reduction in mineral costs. Even if the empire is spread out
that +4 efficiency cuts down on the energy losses. Try that
with the peacekeeper and you have to make sure that all your
bases are clustered together to cut down the efficiency
losses to a manageable level.
If you're wondering about worthless social engineering. Look
at free market. I don't think the plus is worth all the minuses.
Drones are everywhere, and the support is abysmal just for a
lousy improvement in economy. No one in his or her right mind
will choose it. IMHO, planned is best, the green and simple
are in second place, and free market stinks to high heaven.
Later...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
K I R A T I L A I S A T H I T kir...@u.washington.edu
CurtAdams
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic, CurtAdams wrote:
>> I tried police state once with the UN.
>I thought the UN wasn't allowed to use Police State.
You're right; it was planned economy.
CurtAdams
>If you're wondering about worthless social engineering. Look
>at free market. I don't think the plus is worth all the minuses.
>Drones are everywhere, and the support is abysmal just for a
>lousy improvement in economy. No one in his or her right mind
>will choose it. IMHO, planned is best, the green and simple
>are in second place, and free market stinks to high heaven.
Not my experience at all. With Wealth, I find it works just
like republican government in Civ - the economic gains suffice
to satisfy the people and pay for lost production with some
left over. It's particularly potent with Morgan or the UN,
due to the commerce bonuses.
Zan Thrax
> at free market. I don't think the plus is worth all the minuses.
> Drones are everywhere, and the support is abysmal just for a
> lousy improvement in economy. No one in his or her right mind
> will choose it. IMHO, planned is best, the green and simple
> are in second place, and free market stinks to high heaven.
I agree. I never use free market (which means Morgan's always pissed at me)
I like planned best, but I'm often green so that I can get a good planet
rating and snag some worms.
SnowFire
Yes, good point. But remember that the Gaians only have a -1 Morale, which
means that don't get affected by the + modifiers halved. Yes, you'll be
able to choose wealth, but do you really want to? I almost always choose
power in terms of values in a war, and as soon a war really does break out,
you'd switch off of wealth to power and your commandoes would function as
commandoes again. Plus, since you'd be choosing the wealth option for more
energy- you'd gain most of that energy right back with the original
efficiency bonus instead of going with the morale bonus. Remember, +1
Economy is not that spectacular. It's the +2 Economy that really gets you
a lot of money, so Wealth is only a good option when combined with Free
Market, IMHO- and FM economies aren't an option with the Gaians.
White Cat
> That's what I do play. Unfortunately, if I want to be able to
> move my %'s past 50/50 without losses I need to have a green
> economy. I like Green Democracy, it is just rather pointless in
> the early game.
Oh, is that why? I couldn't figure out why I couldn't adjust my
tax/science (sorry, I still use Civ terms :) rates without it talking
about big penalties, often to the point that I was getting less labs
than before. How high does your efficiency have to be in order to
eliminate this?
_____________________________________________
.'. | Extra-Topping Speedy, a.k.a. White Cat |
|\ _|_|_ /| | |
|\ ,-' .|. `-. /| | "I'm too lazy to pull up my quotes file |
\`-._,'|'._,-'/ | and paste one in at the moment." |
|`-.|_(_)_|,-'| | - White Cat |
/|| o | o ||\ | |
\|'.__.|.__.'|/ |Speedy's Samurai Pizza Cats WWW Hall of Fame |
\|== | ==|/ |http://www.kneehill.com/~karye/spcwwwhof.htm |
`---|_|---' |_____________________________________________|
Neil Fradkin
>at free market. I don't think the plus is worth all the minuses.
>Drones are everywhere, and the support is abysmal just for a
>lousy improvement in economy. No one in his or her right mind
>will choose it. IMHO, planned is best, the green and simple
>are in second place, and free market stinks to high heaven.
+3 energy rating gives +1 energy every square! Imagine, even late game
discoveries taking 3-4 turns while still making 100+ energy per turn and
giving 10% psyc to make the larger cities happy.
Andrew R. Gillett
> If you're wondering about worthless social engineering. Look
> at free market. I don't think the plus is worth all the minuses.
> Drones are everywhere, and the support is abysmal just for a
> lousy improvement in economy. No one in his or her right mind
> will choose it. IMHO, planned is best, the green and simple
> are in second place, and free market stinks to high heaven.
Free Market tends to double or even quadruple my income. The drones are
easily handled with a bit of psych.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
"I've always wanted to be a sandcastle." - Chelmer Monkton, Starship
Losers
K. Laisathit
SnowFire <snowball...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Yes, good point. But remember that the Gaians only have a -1 Morale, which
>means that don't get affected by the + modifiers halved. Yes, you'll be
>able to choose wealth, but do you really want to? I almost always choose
>power in terms of values in a war, and as soon a war really does break out,
>you'd switch off of wealth to power and your commandoes would function as
>commandoes again. Plus, since you'd be choosing the wealth option for more
>energy- you'd gain most of that energy right back with the original
>efficiency bonus instead of going with the morale bonus. Remember, +1
>Economy is not that spectacular. It's the +2 Economy that really gets you
>a lot of money, so Wealth is only a good option when combined with Free
>Market, IMHO- and FM economies aren't an option with the Gaians.
IIRC, +2 Economy only gives you +1 energy at your base. The +1
energy per square kicks in only when Economy goes to +3. What
does +4 economy do? Something with golden age, anybody knows
what it does? I think it's a little like 'I love the king'
day in Civ. But since you get population boom with +6 growth
(planned + democracy + children's creche), I don't know what
golden age does in SMAC.
Later..
Andrew R. Gillett
> energy per square kicks in only when Economy goes to +3.
No. +1 Economy is +1 energy per base, +2 is +1 energy per square.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
"Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh." - Richard Herring
M. Norton
: Switching to a +1 morale lets you choose wealth (or even
: change, you'd pretty much have to depend on native units in
: combat - and your poor morale means your non-native units get
: crunched by mindworms. I THINK that the +2 morale of a cheche
: will offset this penalty, but only for units defending in that
: city.
Try Democracy/Green/Wealth when you get the Neural Amplifier. I don't
think you'll find that your units are getting crunched anymore by mindworms.
Even better, Dream Twister in conjunction with the Neural Amplifier makes
a very nasty combination for native units (and non-native for that matter).
I don't know if Dream Twister or Neural Amplifier secret projects are
available in the demo, however I think you may find that your strategies
will change when more technology becomes available.
With Gaians, I'm typically on D/G/W all the time, occasionally switching
to Police State and maxing Econ in wartime. It seems to work fairly well.
Notice with Mindworm capture, quite often you'll end up with Independent
units, they're not a support burden.
Regards
Mark Norton
--
===================+=========================================================
Mark D. Norton | This signature was printed on
mno...@netcom.com | 100% recycled electrons
=============================================================================
Ananda Gupta
economy-increasing bonuses (like Morgan's inherent, wealth, or various
base facilities) because the help files don't describe the upper limit.
When you are at +4 Economy and get +2 energy per square plus an
additional commerce bonus, and are Morgan and planetary governor, you've
basically got it in the bag.
Ananda
--
Some folks are dissatisfied with free enterprise if it doesn't work
perfectly, and satisfied with government if it works at all.
-- Daniel B. Klein
Guido den Broeder
<369A97B4...@ibm.net>...
> Free market is actually quite good when combined with other
> economy-increasing bonuses (like Morgan's inherent, wealth, or various
> base facilities) because the help files don't describe the upper limit.
> When you are at +4 Economy and get +2 energy per square plus an
> additional commerce bonus, and are Morgan and planetary governor, you've
> basically got it in the bag.
+4 Economy provides +1 energy/square, +2/base, and +2 commerce. Good enough
though. The max is +5 Economy. It's all in the alpha.txt file.
Ex Mudder
move my %'s past 50/50 without losses I need to have a green
economy. I like Green Democracy, it is just rather pointless in
the early game.
>Oh, is that why? I couldn't figure out why I couldn't adjust my
tax/science (sorry, I still use Civ terms :) rates without it
talking about big penalties, often to the point that I was
getting less labs than before. How high does your efficiency
have to be in order to eliminate this?<
Faction's ideal social engineering (based on "agenda") - Green
for Gaian, Fundie for Miriam, Free Market for Morgan, Democracy
for Lal, Police State for Yang, Power for Santiago, and Knowledge
for UoP.
--
James Gassaway
In the docs or the tutorial it says that if your tax and science rates
are not equal that you lose some to a form of increased inefficiency.
--
Dimensional Traveler
Commander, WarForce Omega (the Star Killers), Multiversal Mercenaries.
You name it, we kill it, any time, any reality.
Chris Byler
wrote:
>Ex Mudder <74640...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in article
><uHwRPkJP#GA....@nih2naac.prod2.compuserve.com>...
>> In my first few games of the SMAC Demo, playing Gaian, I
>> quickly went to green democracy, and was building children's
>> creches.
>> Then I went and paid more attention to what efficiency does.
>> a +8 efficency is absolutely absurd, and utterly useless in the
>> demo. I then decided to try planned democracy and found that,
>> near the end of the game, my pop 6 cities with trade pacts and
>> terraforming had 1 whole energy loss to efficency. Switching to
>> a green economy (increasing efficiency by 4) changed nothing.
>> According to the advances concepts, every 4 efficiency roughly
>> doubles / halves your energy loss due to efficiency.
>> The point I found was that the Gaians +2 effiency was
>> effectively wasted, at least in the Demo.
>> Now I would like to solicit opinions: what would be an equal
>> trade off to customise the Gaians? I've started playing Gaians
>> with an based efficieny of 0 and morale of +1 and having a much
>> easier time. But is 2 efficiency for 2 morale an even trade?
>The max efficiency you can have is +4, a rating above that doesn't add
>anything. Read the alpha.txt file.
True. But in fact, even at EFFIC 0, inefficiency losses are minimal,
so positive EFFIC has little or no benefit (compare this to the
awesome power of +4 ECON, for instance).
Positive EFFIC just doesn't give you any real benefit compared to
positive ratings in most other variables.
(Although, according to the text files, positive EFFIC reduces the
"riot factor" that gives you extra drones when you have many bases.
In the actual game, where you can have more than 10 bases, this may
become a factor.)
BTW, has anyone tried Free Market economics? -5 Police? How do you
keep _any_ colonies from rioting? Does it work like Democracy in Civ,
and the ECON bonuses are actually enough to offset massive Psych
payments?
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"I'm not a speed reader. I'm a speed understander."
-- Isaac Asimov
Neil Fradkin
>so positive EFFIC has little or no benefit (compare this to the
>awesome power of +4 ECON, for instance).
>
>Positive EFFIC just doesn't give you any real benefit compared to
>positive ratings in most other variables.
>
>(Although, according to the text files, positive EFFIC reduces the
>"riot factor" that gives you extra drones when you have many bases.
>In the actual game, where you can have more than 10 bases, this may
>become a factor.)
Efficency becomes a big factor later in the game. As you mentioned, when
you start to get a lot of bases (and you'll need a lot of bases becuse the
computer goes crazy with expansion in the mid to late game) a low efficency
means that you'll have a hard time with the drone riots. Also, later in the
game you will probally want to start adjusting the sliders from their 50
enegry/50 science position to maximize one or the other depending on the
situation.
>BTW, has anyone tried Free Market economics? -5 Police? How do you
>keep _any_ colonies from rioting? Does it work like Democracy in Civ,
>and the ECON bonuses are actually enough to offset massive Psych
>payments?
The -5 police doesn't really come into play unless you have a lot of
units outside your borders. Air attack units also cause unhappiness, so for
a free marketeer, they are right out (but air defense units are okay). The
+1 enegry per square is an amazing boon when you have a large empire with a
lot of squares being worked. In the late game with a decent sized empire the
+1 enegry per square means the difference between making <100 enegry with
tech every 5-6 turns, and making >200 enegry and tech every three turns (for
example).
K. Laisathit
Chris Byler <cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu> wrote:
>Positive EFFIC just doesn't give you any real benefit compared to
>positive ratings in most other variables.
>
>(Although, according to the text files, positive EFFIC reduces the
>"riot factor" that gives you extra drones when you have many bases.
>In the actual game, where you can have more than 10 bases, this may
>become a factor.)
Hmm... I don't think Demo actually reveals a lot in this regard.
The turn limit means that you won't expand a great deal before
the game ends.
IIRC, the formula for efficiency loss is:
(distance x energy) / 64 - ((4 - efficiency) x 8)
Suppose you're in a 0 efficiency regime (Planned + Children's
Creche). Assuming that your base is 10 squares out, you'll lose
almost a third of your energy output. That surely bites! I'll
admit that super efficiency isn't all that great. This is
something that Firaxis ought to look into. You're right,
+4 econ beats +4 efficiency hand down. IMHO, the efficiency
equation ought to work better at the upper range. (zero
losses like demoncracy in the old Civ for super efficiency
is a good start)
OTOH, +4 econ is a lot harder to come by than +4 efficiency.
A democracy + children's creche gives you that. +4 econs takes
a lot of doing, Free Market + Wealth will give you that, but
at a huge cost.
>BTW, has anyone tried Free Market economics? -5 Police? How do you
>keep _any_ colonies from rioting? Does it work like Democracy in Civ,
>and the ECON bonuses are actually enough to offset massive Psych
>payments?
I think that's why Free Market sucks bad - unless you can somehow
manage to curb the negative with other social engineering traits.
Later...
Brian Reynolds
>>keep _any_ colonies from rioting? Does it work like Democracy in Civ,
>>and the ECON bonuses are actually enough to offset massive Psych
>>payments?
>
>I think that's why Free Market sucks bad - unless you can somehow
>manage to curb the negative with other social engineering traits.
Try setting your Psych to 20%; for decent-sized empires, your +2 (or
higher) ECONOMY rating will more than make up for the Psych
expenditure.
Free Market is a tricky proposition to stabilize, but it may well be
the most powerful social choice available in the early-to-mid game.
Brian Reynolds
Alpha Centauri Designer
FIRAXIS Games
Guido den Broeder
<36b94ece...@news.clark.net>...
> Try setting your Psych to 20%; for decent-sized empires, your +2 (or
> higher) ECONOMY rating will more than make up for the Psych
> expenditure.
> Free Market is a tricky proposition to stabilize, but it may well be
> the most powerful social choice available in the early-to-mid game.
Not sure about that. My best scores so far in the demo (around 500% -
transcend, standard map, iron man) have been with planned economy, later
turned into green. I guess it's pretty balanced :) and depending on the
circumstances (faction stats, trade possibilities for tech, social agenda
of your main rivals) which is best. It's not too expensive to switch a few
times btw. Maybe the price for upheaval should grow with the size of the
empire?
Regards,
Guido
Ian Wu
Guido den Broeder wrote in message <01be4c98$6d290f60$0100007f@localhost>...
>Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com> wrote in article
><36b94ece...@news.clark.net>...
>> Try setting your Psych to 20%; for decent-sized empires, your +2 (or
>> higher) ECONOMY rating will more than make up for the Psych
>> expenditure.
>> Free Market is a tricky proposition to stabilize, but it may well be
>> the most powerful social choice available in the early-to-mid game.
>
>Not sure about that. My best scores so far in the demo (around 500% -
>transcend, standard map, iron man) have been with planned economy, later
>turned into green. I guess it's pretty balanced :) and depending on the
I guess I won't buy this game then.
On sheer principle I I refuse to buy a game which has a economic
model that says a planned economy reaches better results than a
free market.
Ian Wu
Jason McCullough
I can't even think of a response to this silly statement. ;0
To respond by email, remove "blort" from the front of my email
address.
blort...@ou.edu
Jason McCullough
".....to identify Flavor Flav as a clown with a clock is to lose sight
of Public Enemy's goal to inspire, entertain and educate."
(from www.public-enemy.com)
Christoph Nahr
>On sheer principle I I refuse to buy a game which has a economic
>model that says a planned economy reaches better results than a
>free market.
On the contrary, I never buy free-market simulations such as
Entrepreneur. They might be more realistic but what fun is a game
where I can't play the almighty dictator?
--
Chris Nahr (cnahr@ibmnet, insert dot after ibm to reply by e-mail)
Please don't e-mail me if you post! PGP key at wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net
Guido den Broeder
>
>On sheer principle I I refuse to buy a game which has a economic
>model that says a planned economy reaches better results than a
>free market.
What a peculiar principle! In real life, this matter is far from settled.
IMHO it's much more likely that a hybrid, like we have in Europe (but with
some need for fine-tuning, no doubt), can produce better results than
either of these extremes.
Jason McCullough
Uh oh. I think I hear Cleve coming.
White Cat
> > Not sure about that. My best scores so far in the demo (around 500%
> > transcend, standard map, iron man) have been with planned economy,
> > later turned into green. I guess it's pretty balanced :) and
> > depending on the
> I guess I won't buy this game then.
>
> On sheer principle I I refuse to buy a game which has a economic
> model that says a planned economy reaches better results than a
> free market.
You can alter the effects of Free Market (and most other options in the
game) by editing the alpha.txt file. Personnally, I set it to +2
Economy, -2 Support, -3 Police. I could kind of see a really bad Police
hit, but I think that a weaker one and an additional Support penalty is
more realistic. However, the serious Planet penalty is quite
ridiculous; a free market is much better for the economy than a planned
one. Compare the USA to the former USSR; which is more polluted?
Neil Fradkin
>the most powerful social choice available in the early-to-mid game.
Don't count it out in the late game! When your empire is finally huge
and your cities highly populated that +1 per square is an incredible bonus.
Nothing like making enough money to buy every city an improvement every few
turns. At one point when playing free market economies, I start hurrying
production of orbital power stations every few turns faster and faster with
each one launched creating exponential economic growth!
Neil Fradkin
>model that says a planned economy reaches better results than a
>free market.
If that was a joke, ROTFL! If not, don't worry, free market kicks butt.
The demo is too short to show it's advantages. Free market always yields a
better economy than planned, but a better economy is not always the goal.
SnowFire
> > model that says a planned economy reaches better results than a
> > free market.
Haha. Don't take the advice of one person; Free Market is really quite
good, and just because its a better economy, doesn't mean its better for
the country. If you want to say that the economy is the most important
thing, go ahead, and choose Free Market, because that's what you'll get.
>
> You can alter the effects of Free Market (and most other options in the
> game) by editing the alpha.txt file. Personnally, I set it to +2
> Economy, -2 Support, -3 Police. I could kind of see a really bad Police
> hit, but I think that a weaker one and an additional Support penalty is
> more realistic. However, the serious Planet penalty is quite
> ridiculous; a free market is much better for the economy than a planned
> one. Compare the USA to the former USSR; which is more polluted?
That's why I believe in a penalty on Planet in Planned economies as well.
But don't delude yourself; a strictly free market economy pollutes like
crazy. Just look back at tales of the Industrial Gilded Age from
1870-1900, when you could walk out with a white shirt into Pittsburgh in
the morning and return with a gray one at night and companies used rivers
as wholesale dumping grounds. The reason why we're less polluted is that
America doesn't run on a strictly free market economy; in the Progressive
Era, we instituted some controls on industry, and in the 60's under Johnson
& Nixon, we put in many more. So that's why we're less polluted then the
USSR, but don't think that we aren't polluted. I suggest that you keep
that -3 Planet penalty, and switch Planned to +2 Growth +2 Industry -2
Efficiency -2 Planet. That's quite realistic, since the USSR did get quite
a lot of industry out of what wasn't really a very industrialized country.
--
-SnowFire
Webmaster of The Mindworm, Chiron's First Strategy & Tactics Magazine
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/7217/smac/
Guido den Broeder
<36b54...@news.nucleus.com>...
> You can alter the effects of Free Market (and most other options in the
> game) by editing the alpha.txt file. Personnally, I set it to +2
> Economy, -2 Support, -3 Police. I could kind of see a really bad Police
> hit, but I think that a weaker one and an additional Support penalty is
> more realistic. However, the serious Planet penalty is quite
> ridiculous; a free market is much better for the economy than a planned
> one. Compare the USA to the former USSR; which is more polluted?
I wouldn't dare to guess. Both are pretty bad. The USSR, however, could
hardly be called a good example of a planned economy, they did so many
things very wrong. They certainly didn't any planning at all involving the
environment. On the other hand, the USA is a fair (but not perfect) example
of a free market, with all the environmental effects that go with it.
Gary Hladik
>White Cat <white_cat@**NOSPAM**usa.net> wrote in article
><36b54...@news.nucleus.com>...
[snip]
>> However, the serious Planet penalty is quite
>> ridiculous; a free market is much better for the economy than a planned
>> one. Compare the USA to the former USSR; which is more polluted?
>I wouldn't dare to guess. Both are pretty bad.
Russia is worse. From the current issue of US News & World Report:
Seventy million people in more than
100 cities live in pollution that
exceeds American maximums by a factor
of five or more. Three quarters of
the water supply is contaminated.
In contrast, US air and water quality has generally improved since the
early 70's, although there's plenty of room for improvement.
>The USSR, however, could
>hardly be called a good example of a planned economy,
Au contraire, the USSR was a perfect example of a so-called "planned
economy." The Bolsheviks got to play with the largest nation on earth
(Sorry, Canadians!), one with abundant natural resources, a huge labor
pool, and NO political opposition (after the civil war) to interfere with
the implementation of their ideas. The "planned economy" model never had it
so good. :-)
>They certainly didn't any planning at all involving the
>environment. On the other hand, the USA is a fair (but not perfect) example
>of a free market, with all the environmental effects that go with it.
Well, it seems to me that the same population at the same economic level
and the same technology will produce the same pollutants, regardless of
its current economic ideology. The final impact on the environment
depends on how the pollution is dealt with, and that's more a function of
government and politics.
For example, could Rachel Carson have published "Silent Spring" in the
USSR, if insecticide controls would have impacted the Five-Year
Agricultural Plan? Can anyone visualize "green" citizens demonstrating
against the State-owned Dowsky Chemical Works, and therefore against the
State itself? Would Pravda print an article about cancer deaths among
residents of the Lovesky Canal People's Revolutionary Housing Project? :-)
I'd say the environmental movements in the West had more to do with the
relatively open political climate than with any particular economic model.
Of course democratic government and decentralized economies generally
go hand-in-hand, but I can visualize an autocratic nation with a relatively
free market (Chile under Pinochet comes to mind). It's harder to
imagine a "planned economy" without an autocratic government to enforce
it.
I haven't seen SMAC, so I don't know how all this is modelled in the game,
but I'd hope it takes some of these factors into account.
Gary
Aaron C Shaver
: "Guido den Broeder" <bro...@bart.nl> writes:
: >White Cat <white_cat@**NOSPAM**usa.net> wrote in article
: ><36b54...@news.nucleus.com>...
: >> However, the serious Planet penalty is quite
: >> ridiculous; a free market is much better for the economy than a planned
: >> one. Compare the USA to the former USSR; which is more polluted?
: >I wouldn't dare to guess. Both are pretty bad.
: Russia is worse. From the current issue of US News & World Report:
However, it's probably worthwhile to note that the parts of the US
government that have to do with keeping the pollution down are those
parts that are among the more regulated. In fact, levels of pollution in
the US have only decreased since the government has taken a firmer hand,
and removed many of the market freedoms in the areas of pollution and
environmental control.
Of course, these controls were instituted due to the outcry from a
concerned citizenry; this begins to fall into the arena of Democracy (at
least in SMAC terms) and is no longer really part of the free market economy.
Aaron
Riboflavin
>However, it's probably worthwhile to note that the parts of the US
>government that have to do with keeping the pollution down are those
>parts that are among the more regulated.
Which is why you get fun things like cities having to pay companies to pour
industrial waste into their sewer system so that they can take out enough
waste to satisfy EPA standards. And why the Los Angeles basin would have
qualified as an EPA superfund site before there were any cities in it.
> In fact, levels of pollution in
>the US have only decreased since the government has taken a firmer hand,
>and removed many of the market freedoms in the areas of pollution and
>environmental control.
In fact, levels of pollution decreased more before the government took a
firmer hand, and the rate of decrease in pollution levels dropped rather
sharply by the time the central planning committees got their approval to
start. Maybe you should read some statistics.
--
Kevin Allegood ribotr...@mindspring.pants.com
Remove the pants from my email address to reply
"I remember when I was a kid that that movie made me cry and cry and that
was just the typography." - Kibo on Willy Wonka & the chocolate factory
Riboflavin
>What a peculiar principle! In real life, this matter is far from settled.
In the dreams of Marxists, maybe. I love people like you, though. Even
through all of the massive collapses of planned economies, and the death of
your idol the USSR, you still think that the matter isn't settled. Umm...
"but all those planned economies crashing, and all of the economic booms
when industries are deregulated are from people doing it wrong! Give me a
five year plan and the chance to purge a few dissidents, and I'll do it
right!"
The matter is far from settled, even though free market economies outpreform
planned economies so incredibly well that what counts as "poor" in the US
qualifies as middle-class or wealthy in the rest of the world. You probably
think that the matter of the sun coming up tomorrow isn't settled either.
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
<7991db$nk0$3...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
> The matter is far from settled, even though free market economies
outpreform
> planned economies so incredibly well that what counts as "poor" in the US
> qualifies as middle-class or wealthy in the rest of the world. You
probably
Based on my experience living in the US I would not judge the poor people
in the US as having a quality of life that even approaches the middle
class in
Canada and the places in Western Europe I have visited.
Besides you really don't have a free market econemy in the US - you have
lots
of laws protecting you from 'unfair' competition from abroad (product and
workforce),
exports are forbidden by default, you have anti trust laws, you have lots
of laws
regulating what products can be legally traded (drugs, alcohol, porn,
weapons etc.).
A totally free market is really an unatainable goal since a free market
requires
total information
Guido den Broeder
> Guido den Broeder wrote in message <01be4d53$8889a920$0100007f@localhost>...
> >What a peculiar principle! In real life, this matter is far from settled.
>
> In the dreams of Marxists, maybe. I love people like you, though. Even
> through all of the massive collapses of planned economies, and the death of
> your idol the USSR, you still think that the matter isn't settled.
I'm sorry to have to correct you, but the USSR was in no way my idol, nor am I a
Marxist. My point is, that eg the USSR, if one could call it a planned economy
at all, did not behave like a planned economy should to reach good results.
Certainly in environmental matters a planned economy should be able to do better
than a free market (didn't you notice that the USA, despite having much better
tech than the USSR, has just as much pollution?). The plans made by the USSR,
however, were clearly wrong most of the time. I think they simply didn't have
their priorities straightened out.
That said, it is to be expected that wealth is larger with a free market - but
the drawbacks should not be overlooked.
> Umm..."but all those planned economies crashing, and all of the economic booms
>
> when industries are deregulated are from people doing it wrong!
Er - which countries are you thinking of here? Many Eastern European countries
are struggling. Russia's economic output is way less than it was during the
final years of the USSR. So, it seems that people can do things wrong even after
deregulation.
> Give me a five year plan and the chance to purge a few dissidents, and I'll do
> it right!"
IMHO a five year period is way to short to do some decent planning in these
troubled times. Over here we use periods spanning several decades at least.
> The matter is far from settled, even though free market economies outpreform
> planned economies so incredibly well that what counts as "poor" in the US
> qualifies as middle-class or wealthy in the rest of the world.
Sorry to disappoint you again, but there are many more people in the US living
below the poverty line than in western Europe. What is simply called poor in
your country, would be called an atrocity over here.
> You probably think that the matter of the sun coming up tomorrow isn't settled
> either.
It is. The sun won't come up tomorrow. It's we who turn towards it (well, first
I, and you several hours later), don't they teach that in US schools anymore?
Guido den Broeder
> Russia is worse. From the current issue of US News & World Report:
>
> Seventy million people in more than 100 cities live in pollution that
> exceeds American maximums by a factor of five or more. Three quarters of the
> water supply is contaminated. In contrast, US air and water quality has
> generally improved since the early 70's, although there's plenty of room for
> improvement.
I wouldn't put much trust in those figures if I were you. I'd rather rely on an
independent source. Still, even this report doesn't provide an over-all
conclusion. How about eg heavy metals, the ozon layer, flora and fauna variety,
and the other 150 million citizens (and how is that pollution measured), how bad
IS the air & water quality in the US etc. etc.
>Au contraire, the USSR was a perfect example of a so-called "plannedeconomy."
>The Bolsheviks got to play with the largest nation on earth(Sorry, Canadians!),
one
> with abundant natural resources, a huge laborpool, and NO political opposition
>(after the civil war) to interfere with the implementation of their ideas. The
"planned >economy" model never had it so good. :-)
They had the potential, yes, but my point was that they didn't make good use of
it.
>Well, it seems to me that the same population at the same economic level and
the >same technology will produce the same pollutants, regardless of its current
>economic ideology.
I humbly disagree. Even with a given over-all level of technology, research
could have led to quite different results. Instead of labour-saving techniques,
environment-saving techniques could have been developed if only the incentive
had been there. Such an incentive should IMHO be easier to create in a planned
economy than with a free market, where taxes and subsidies are the way to go.
> The final impact on the environment depends on how the pollution is dealt
> with, and that's more a function of government and politics.
Prevention is much more important, I think. But how would you deal with
pollution in a pure free market system (which the US is not)?
> For example, could Rachel Carson have published "Silent Spring" in the
> USSR, if insecticide controls would have impacted the Five-Year
> Agricultural Plan? Can anyone visualize "green" citizens demonstrating
> against the State-owned Dowsky Chemical Works, and therefore against the
> State itself? Would Pravda print an article about cancer deaths among
> residents of the Lovesky Canal People's Revolutionary Housing Project? :-)
Ah, but now you're talking about a different thing entirely! Just because the
USSR had little freedom of speech after the early years, it doesn't follow that
that would always be so in a planned economy!
> I'd say the environmental movements in the West had more to do with the
> relatively open political climate than with any particular economic model.
Exactly. But the Western governments responded to the movements by ... making
plans!!!
> Of course democratic government and decentralized economies generally
> go hand-in-hand, but I can visualize an autocratic nation with a relatively
> free market (Chile under Pinochet comes to mind). It's harder to imagine a
> "planned economy" without an autocratic government to enforce it.
Well, maybe I have a more vivid imagination :)
Regards,
Guido
Courageous
> USSR had little freedom of speech after the early years, it doesn't follow that
> that would always be so in a planned economy!
The essential flaw with entirely planned economies is
that they are so patently against human nature that
the only means of putting them into place involves
copious use of lethal force against the citizenry.
20 million dead. Thank you, Stalin.
C/
Guido den Broeder
I think the odds would be better for a planned democracy than for a planned police
state (the type we've seen so far, mostly).
> 20 million dead. Thank you, Stalin.
As much as I am personally against a totally planned economy, I don't think that
Stalin is a good example. Twas more plotting than planning on his part, if anything,
and politics had more to do with that than economics. Also, killing citizens is
unfortunately not restricted to police states. More people died when the Europeans
"colonized" the America's, to give just one example.
Gary Hladik
[snip]
>Of course, these controls were instituted due to the outcry from a
>concerned citizenry; this begins to fall into the arena of Democracy (at
>least in SMAC terms) and is no longer really part of the free market economy.
Which is what I was trying to point out.
Environmental degradation in general seems more a matter of law than
economics anyway. When party A damages the air that party B breathes,
even when party B is hundreds (thousands) of miles away, I'd say
tort law is more relevant than the "law" of supply and demand. :-)
Gary
Courageous
> state (the type we've seen so far, mostly).
Although it's patently obvious that citizens of a democracy
will in fact tolerate certain amounts of socialism and
planning, it is my personal belief that anything approaching
pure communism is so against human nature that you will
never encounter communism implemented on the national
scale through purely democratic means. Furthermore, if
you have a tendancy towards such thinking, I might recommend
you read Hayek's _Road To Serfdom_ in which he argues that
command economies are by virtue of their very nature paths
leading directly to totalatarianism. The book is 4-5 decades
old now but is still relevant and interesting, IMO.
One of the things that you can easily glean from Hayek is
that communism, national socialism, or any kind of command
economy should be avidly avoided purely because of the
propensity of such systems to result in totalatarian
government. A very interesting read.
> As much as I am personally against a totally planned economy, I don't think that
> Stalin is a good example.
The abstract possibilities of a proposed system of economics
and/or government are useless. All that is useful is the
actual contact such systems have had with the real world.
Hayek had it all figured out 50 years ago. Read _Road To
Serfdom_.
> Also, killing citizens is
> unfortunately not restricted to police states. More people died when the Europeans
> "colonized" the America's, to give just one example.
To Quoque is at best a distraction, so I will disregard
your example.
C/
Guido den Broeder
> Although it's patently obvious that citizens of a democracy
> will in fact tolerate certain amounts of socialism and
> planning, it is my personal belief that anything approaching
> pure communism is so against human nature that you will
> never encounter communism implemented on the national
> scale through purely democratic means. Furthermore, if
> you have a tendancy towards such thinking, I might recommend
> you read Hayek's _Road To Serfdom_ in which he argues that
> command economies are by virtue of their very nature paths
> leading directly to totalatarianism. The book is 4-5 decades
> old now but is still relevant and interesting, IMO.
Since I have no such tendency, I will politely decline. May I in turn
suggest Asimov's Foundation series as excellent reading material. A
planned economy is not the same as a command economy.
> One of the things that you can easily glean from Hayek is
> that communism, national socialism, or any kind of command
> economy should be avidly avoided purely because of the
> propensity of such systems to result in totalatarian
> government. A very interesting read.
Again, this has little to do with the subject at hand (planned economy).
Nonetheless I will add that Hayek's ideas seem a little propagandistic
rather than scientific.
> The abstract possibilities of a proposed system of economics
> and/or government are useless. All that is useful is the
> actual contact such systems have had with the real world.
> Hayek had it all figured out 50 years ago. Read _Road To
> Serfdom_.
Poor Hayek, then! Thinking that humanity could never make any progress
or learn from its mistakes!
> > Also, killing citizens is unfortunately not restricted to police
> > states. More people died when the Europeans "colonized" the America's, > > to give just one example.
>
> To Quoque is at best a distraction, so I will disregard
> your example.
That is entirely up to you. Doesn't give any meaning to your own remark
about Stalin, however.
Gary Hladik
>Gary Hladik wrote:
>> Russia is worse. From the current issue of US News & World Report:
>>
>> Seventy million people in more than 100 cities live in pollution that
>> exceeds American maximums by a factor of five or more. Three quarters of the
>> water supply is contaminated. In contrast, US air and water quality has
>> generally improved since the early 70's, although there's plenty of room for
>> improvement.
>I wouldn't put much trust in those figures if I were you. I'd rather rely on an
>independent source.
Huh?? USNWR isn't an "independent source?" It's just another tool of the
imperialist bourgeois capitalist running dogs? Damn! :-)
All kidding aside, perhaps Mr. den Broeder could explain what he means by
"independent source?" Preferably with examples?
>Still, even this report doesn't provide an over-all conclusion.
Indeed. For example, it omits all mention of Russians living in pollution
that exceeds US standards by "merely" a factor of FOUR, or three, or
two. :-)
>How about eg heavy metals,
Any reason to believe heavy metal pollution (chemical, not musical) is less
serious in Russia than the US?
>the ozon layer,
Last I checked, Russia's ozone layer is the same as the US's. :-)
>flora and fauna variety,
Russia is physically much larger than the US, so I would assume a greater
variety of wildlife.
Does Russia have an endangered species law?
>and the other 150 million citizens
Who live, we are to assume, pollution-free? :-)
>(and how is that pollution measured),
Is Mr. den Broeder suggesting that the figures are fudged somehow? If so,
on what evidence?
>how bad IS the air & water quality in the US etc. etc.
Um, as I pointed out before, not as bad as in Russia.
Damn, I'm getting the strangest sense of deja vu here. :-)
>>Au contraire, the USSR was a perfect example of a so-called "plannedeconomy."
>>The Bolsheviks got to play with the largest nation on earth(Sorry, Canadians!),
>one
>> with abundant natural resources, a huge laborpool, and NO political opposition
>>(after the civil war) to interfere with the implementation of their ideas. The
>"planned >economy" model never had it so good. :-)
>They had the potential, yes, but my point was that they didn't make good use of
>it.
Ah, now I understand. The USSR, though the archtypical "planned economy,"
wasn't a WELL-planned economy! In other words, it's not the system, it's
the people!
Well, at the risk of appearing rude,
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ahem. Sorry. So [snicker], if the system wasn't at fault [chortle], why
did thousands and millions of State managers [giggle], nearly three
generations of them [guffaw], keep screwing up the economy? Does the
"planned economy" model ensure that the real losers always rise
to the top? Or are human beings simply incapable of planning a national
economy? :-)
Or to put it more succinctly, isn't the term "well-planned economy" an
oxymoron? :-)
>>Well, it seems to me that the same population at the same economic level and
>the >same technology will produce the same pollutants, regardless of its current
>>economic ideology.
>I humbly disagree. Even with a given over-all level of technology, research
>could have led to quite different results.
And a different technology, thus violating the conditions I stipulated. The
same internal combustion engine will produce the same pollutants,
regardless of whether it's being driven by a capitalist or a socialist.
The government may or may not require a catalytic converter on the
exhaust, but that has little to do with Adam Smith or Karl Marx.
>Instead of labour-saving techniques,
>environment-saving techniques could have been developed if only the incentive
>had been there.
Exactly. Take the example of the catalytic converter. Adding one to a car
increases the cost of the car, whether it's Russian, Japanese, or American,
i.e. you have a disincentive regardless of the economic model. In the US,
the "incentive" to add the converters is legal/political, not economic.
>Such an incentive should IMHO be easier to create in a planned
>economy than with a free market,
Economic incentives or legal/political "incentives?" If the latter, we're
back to government again, not economics.
BTW, if such incentives are so much easier to implement in a "planned
economy," why didn't the USSR have them? :-)
>where taxes and subsidies are the way to go.
More government. It seems we agree that pollution abatement has more to
do with government than economics. :-)
>> The final impact on the environment depends on how the pollution is dealt
>> with, and that's more a function of government and politics.
>Prevention is much more important, I think.
Prevention is one way of dealing with pollution. Treatment is another.
Doing nothing is a third option and the one favored by the USSR. :-)
>But how would you deal with
>pollution in a pure free market system (which the US is not)?
Since I don't know of any "pure free market systems" past or present, I
can't answer the question as asked. However, since I never let ignorance
discourage me:
Suppose my neighbor starts a chip-making business in his garage. To save
money, he dumps his toxic waste in my back yard instead of treating it. I
should have the right to recover from him the monetary and emotional
costs of remedying the damage. In purely economic terms, I'm making him
pay the REAL costs of his economic activity, but I'm using legal/poltical
means to do it.
Now let's say a Silicon Valley chip maker discharges toxic waste into the
groundwater. Miles away, I find chemicals in my well. Again, the polluter
should be forced to pay the REAL costs of his economic activity.
In practice, the US uses a mixture of civil and criminal law to deal with
environmental damage. Although these laws aren't always effective,
it seems reasonable to deal with a communally "owned" resource
(the environment) through a communal institution (government).
However, there's government and then there's government. Which is more
likely to respond to an environmentally conscious population?
1) The autocratic state, whose officials are responsible only to
themselves.
2) The democratic state, whose officials are responsible to the
electorate.
No peeking at others' answer sheets! :-)
>> For example, could Rachel Carson have published "Silent Spring" in the
>> USSR, if insecticide controls would have impacted the Five-Year
>> Agricultural Plan? Can anyone visualize "green" citizens demonstrating
>> against the State-owned Dowsky Chemical Works, and therefore against the
>> State itself? Would Pravda print an article about cancer deaths among
>> residents of the Lovesky Canal People's Revolutionary Housing Project? :-)
>Ah, but now you're talking about a different thing entirely!
Um, no, I was writing about the same thing: the relative importance of
politics and economics on pollution abatement.
>Just because the USSR had little freedom of speech after the early years,
Over the entire lifetime of the USSR, actually.
>it doesn't follow that that would always be so in a planned economy!
Logically, no. Practically, almost always. As an exercise, class,
enumerate all the "planned economy" nations in history and rank their
level of free speech from 1 to 10, with the USA at 9 and the USSR at 2
(both circa 1985).
>> I'd say the environmental movements in the West had more to do with the
>> relatively open political climate than with any particular economic model.
>Exactly. But the Western governments responded to the movements by ... making
>plans!!!
Really? Funny, some of my relatives are farmers, and they never heard of
the US Five Year Plan for Agriculture. And I guess I was sick the day my
company announced its government-mandated share of the People's Fiber Optic
Quota. :-)
>> Of course democratic government and decentralized economies generally
>> go hand-in-hand, but I can visualize an autocratic nation with a relatively
>> free market (Chile under Pinochet comes to mind). It's harder to imagine a
>> "planned economy" without an autocratic government to enforce it.
>Well, maybe I have a more vivid imagination :)
Having read Mr. den Broeder's comments in this and other posts, I believe he
does. :-)
Gary
Keith Francis
Let me get this strait, you critisize Hayek as being "a little
propagandistic rather than scientific" but in turn you recomend
Asimov's Foundation Series?
*Boggle*
Gary Hladik
>Riboflavin wrote:
[snip]
>I'm sorry to have to correct you, but the USSR was in no way my idol, nor am I a
>Marxist. My point is, that eg the USSR, if one could call it a planned economy
One can. Central planning was rampant, though unsuccessful.
>at all, did not behave like a planned economy should to reach good results.
^^^^^^
Now I'm curious. Which theory(s) of the universe predicts that a "planned
economy" will "reach good results?" The Big Bust? :-)
>Certainly in environmental matters a planned economy should be able to do better
>than a free market
Why? And why didn't the USSR?
>(didn't you notice that the USA, despite having much better
>tech than the USSR, has just as much pollution?).
Nope, didn't notice that. According to my sources the USSR in its time was
worse.
>The plans made by the USSR,
>however, were clearly wrong most of the time. I think they simply didn't have
>their priorities straightened out.
Why not? Could it be that the "system" didn't encourage the "right"
priorities?
>That said, it is to be expected that wealth is larger with a free market
Huh? The "good results" (see above) expected from a "planned economy"
don't include wealth?
>- but the drawbacks should not be overlooked.
Nor are they. Listening to the news, you'd think the country is always in
the middle of some "crisis" or another. Usually around election time. :-)
>> Umm..."but all those planned economies crashing, and all of the economic booms
>>
>> when industries are deregulated are from people doing it wrong!
>Er - which countries are you thinking of here? Many Eastern European countries
>are struggling. Russia's economic output is way less than it was during the
>final years of the USSR. So, it seems that people can do things wrong even after
>deregulation.
Yeah, that same issue of US News & World Report claims the Russians took the
advice of Western economists and deregulated much too fast.
Wait a minute! If socialists can't plan a national economy, and
capitalists can't plan a national economy, then...then... [he hesitates,
terrified of the inescapable conclusion] OhmyGod, then NOBODY can
plan a national economy! Nooooooo! :-)
>> Give me a five year plan and the chance to purge a few dissidents, and I'll do
>> it right!"
>IMHO a five year period is way to short to do some decent planning in these
>troubled times.
Um, in "troubled times," aren't long-term projections even LESS reliable?
:-)
>Over here we use periods spanning several decades at least.
[slaps hand to forehead] Doh! Of course! We can't reliably predict the
next five years, so let's look ahead THIRTY!!! Brilliant! :-)
Gary
Jason McCullough
>
>> Although it's patently obvious that citizens of a democracy
>> will in fact tolerate certain amounts of socialism and
>> planning, it is my personal belief that anything approaching
>> pure communism is so against human nature that you will
>> never encounter communism implemented on the national
>> scale through purely democratic means. Furthermore, if
>> you have a tendancy towards such thinking, I might recommend
>> you read Hayek's _Road To Serfdom_ in which he argues that
>> command economies are by virtue of their very nature paths
>> leading directly to totalatarianism. The book is 4-5 decades
>> old now but is still relevant and interesting, IMO.
>
>Since I have no such tendency, I will politely decline. May I in turn
>suggest Asimov's Foundation series as excellent reading material. A
>planned economy is not the same as a command economy.
>
>> One of the things that you can easily glean from Hayek is
>> that communism, national socialism, or any kind of command
>> economy should be avidly avoided purely because of the
>> propensity of such systems to result in totalatarian
>> government. A very interesting read.
>
>Again, this has little to do with the subject at hand (planned economy).
>Nonetheless I will add that Hayek's ideas seem a little propagandistic
>rather than scientific.
>
>> and/or government are useless. All that is useful is the
>> actual contact such systems have had with the real world.
>> Hayek had it all figured out 50 years ago. Read _Road To
>> Serfdom_.
>
>Poor Hayek, then! Thinking that humanity could never make any progress
>or learn from its mistakes!
>
>> > Also, killing citizens is unfortunately not restricted to police
>> > states. More people died when the Europeans "colonized" the America's, > > to give just one example.
>>
>> To Quoque is at best a distraction, so I will disregard
>> your example.
>
>That is entirely up to you. Doesn't give any meaning to your own remark
>about Stalin, however.
Is this the same Hayek who's responsible for the "Austrian school" of
economics, where recessions are the inevitable punishment for economic
booms?
Gary Hladik
[snip]
>I think the odds would be better for a planned democracy than for a planned police
>state (the type we've seen so far, mostly).
WHAT???? [rubs eyes, re-reads sentence, hoping his eyes were playing
tricks...nope]
Um, if the experiments so far "mostly" give one result, then what on
God's green earth would suggest that "the odds" favor the other result?
Other than wishful thinking, I mean. :-)
[snip]
>Also, killing citizens is
>unfortunately not restricted to police states. More people died when
>the Europeans "colonized" the America's, to give just one example.
Heehee, that's a good one! Mr. den Broeder is obviously making a joke here,
as he could hardly be unaware that the natives killed off by the Europeans
weren't "citizens". What a card! Hyuck hyuck!
Going off-off-topic for a moment, anyone know the pre-Columbian population
of the Americas? Was it comparable to the tens of millions of "citizens"
exterminated by Twentieth Century police states (e.g. Nazi Germany,
the USSR, Czarist Russia, Maoist China, Kampuchea, North korea, etc.)?
Gary
Gavin Snyder
>
> Riboflavin wrote:
>
> > Guido den Broeder wrote in message <01be4d53$8889a920$0100007f@localhost>...
> > >What a peculiar principle! In real life, this matter is far from settled.
> >
> > In the dreams of Marxists, maybe. I love people like you, though. Even
> > through all of the massive collapses of planned economies, and the death of
> > your idol the USSR, you still think that the matter isn't settled.
>
> Marxist. My point is, that eg the USSR, if one could call it a planned economy
> tech than the USSR, has just as much pollution?). The plans made by the USSR,
> however, were clearly wrong most of the time. I think they simply didn't have
> their priorities straightened out.
Why try to bait people? You know what you're writing is bullshit. I'll
admit that the US is the biggest polluter in the world, but that's
simply due to the insane amount of motor vehicles we have. As far as
industrial pollution goes, Socialist countries have historically been
the worst offenders in the second half of the 20th century. Eastern
Europe in the early 90's was covered in a thick patina of grime (unsure
what the situation is now...).
Socialist ("planned", whatever) economies/countries are doomed to
environmental failure, because there is no incentive whatsoever for
industry to attempt to be environmentally friendly. No tax breaks or
commoditization of pollution rights, no angry hordes of Greenpeace
protestors chaining themselves to your plants, no embarrasing TV
exposes, no governmental environmental oversight (the government runs
the company -> conflict of interest). The fact that many of these
absent checks are political rather than strictly economic just
highlights the fact that democracy and capitalism go hand in
hand...democracy -> property rights -> capitalism, while communist
tyranny -> state ownership -> planned economy.
> That said, it is to be expected that wealth is larger with a free market - but
> the drawbacks should not be overlooked.
But "wealth" is the prerequisite for any other type of meaningful value,
from environmentalism to social justice to military security to
effective health care.
> > Umm..."but all those planned economies crashing, and all of the economic booms
> >
> > when industries are deregulated are from people doing it wrong!
>
> Er - which countries are you thinking of here? Many Eastern European countries
> are struggling. Russia's economic output is way less than it was during the
> final years of the USSR. So, it seems that people can do things wrong even after
> deregulation.
Russia decided to privatize by selling the state industries to a bunch
of insolvent, mafia-connected Russian bankers rather than to
credibly-managed foreign corporations. So yes, of course people can do
things wrong after deregulation. That said, is there any doubt that
things will get better? Eastern Europe is doing great -- more BMW's and
less Trabants.
> > Give me a five year plan and the chance to purge a few dissidents, and I'll do
> > it right!"
>
> IMHO a five year period is way to short to do some decent planning in these
> troubled times. Over here we use periods spanning several decades at least.
He was referring rhetorically to the Russian/Chinese communist tradition
of five year plans. And why bother to plan at all (especially for
several decades) when you know that your original plan will be revealed
eventually as heinously misguided, and when private industry can react
to events much more quickly than a government?
> > The matter is far from settled, even though free market economies outpreform
> > planned economies so incredibly well that what counts as "poor" in the US
> > qualifies as middle-class or wealthy in the rest of the world.
>
> Sorry to disappoint you again, but there are many more people in the US living
> below the poverty line than in western Europe. What is simply called poor in
> your country, would be called an atrocity over here.
The original poster was attempting to draw a comparison between the US
and planned economies, not Western Europe (you guys are close, but not
there yet). But with a budget 33% of GDP (for the Netherlands), it's
not hard to see how you can spoon-feed your welfare moms out of
poverty. That kind of obscene waste is such a disincentive to real
productivity that one ought to be ashamed...
Gavin
Guido den Broeder
> All kidding aside, perhaps Mr. den Broeder could explain what he means by "independent source?" Preferably with examples?
Ever heard of the United Nations? Or (since the US aren't paying their
fees to this organization) perhaps the proceedings of the world
conferences on environmental issues (climate and such, remember Rio?).
> Does Russia have an endangered species law?
Yes, it does. They are presently doing good work in eastern Siberia, for
instance, to preserve the wildlife.
> Is Mr. den Broeder suggesting that the figures are fudged somehow? If so, on what evidence?
No, I'm merely saying that a statement from country x saying that
pollution in country x is less than in country y (former? enemy),
without giving any incling on how this pollution is measured, gives me
little info. It could well be that the environmental problems in Russia
are worse than in the US (I never said they weren't), but personally I
haven't seen any evidence on this.
> Ah, now I understand. The USSR, though the archtypical "planned economy," wasn't a WELL-planned economy! In other words, it's not the system, it's the people!
Not entirely, it was also the system. First of all, apart from having a
more or less planned economy, the USSR also had a certain type of
government, right? Second, I personally don't think that a fully planned
economy (abstract notion, but still) would yield optimal results, just
like a pure free market won't.
> Well, at the risk of appearing rude,
Well, you are rude. And quite unnecessary, too, since I've been nothing
but polite myself.
> >I humbly disagree. Even with a given over-all level of technology, research could have led to quite different results.
> And a different technology, thus violating the conditions I stipulated.
No, you were talking LEVEL of tech. You can have different tech of the
same level.
> The same internal combustion engine will produce the same pollutants,
> regardless of whether it's being driven by a capitalist or a socialist.
Precisely. What we need is a greener engine of the same capacity.
> In the US, the "incentive" to add the converters is legal/political, not economic.
That's why government is important as well, not just the type of
economy. My point was that the instruments any government can use are
different for each type of economic system.
> BTW, if such incentives are so much easier to implement in a "planned
> economy," why didn't the USSR have them?
Because the government had other priorities, such as spreading their
beliefs on communism over the whole world and spending 20% of their
budget on the military.
> >But how would you deal with pollution in a pure free market system (which the US is not)?
> Suppose my neighbor starts a chip-making business in his garage. To save money, he dumps his toxic waste in my back yard instead of treating it. I should have the right to recover from him the monetary and emotional
> costs of remedying the damage.
That has little to do with the type of economy, don't you think? Any
decent government would grant you that right, whatever the economic
system.
> >it doesn't follow that that would always be so in a planned economy!
>
> Logically, no. Practically, almost always. As an exercise, class,
> enumerate all the "planned economy" nations in history and rank their
> level of free speech from 1 to 10, with the USA at 9 and the USSR at 2
> (both circa 1985).
Hmm, that would put my own country right off the scale (25 or so?). May
I remind you of all the book-burning in your country? And how would
Darwin, Martin Luther King, the Mc Carthy victims, the Vietnam
protestors, and the Indian nations feel about your rating? To name just
a few!
> >Exactly. But the Western governments responded to the movements by ... making plans!!!
> Really? Funny, some of my relatives are farmers, and they never heard of the US Five Year Plan for Agriculture. And I guess I was sick the day my company announced its government-mandated share of the People's Fiber Optic Quota.
I can believe that the US made much less work of tackling the problems
at hand than other western nations, being such a great country already,
but surely there must be something?
Look, I can understand your desire to defend your nation (even when I
never attacked it in any way!), but you really don't think that you have
the best of everything, do you? And I don't think it appropriate to try
and ridicule others in the process as well.
Btw would it come as too vicious a blow to you to know that two of the
most prominent advisory bodies in the Netherlands are (1) the Central
Planning Bureau and (2) the Social & Cultural Planning Bureau?
Guido den Broeder
> Let me get this strait, you critisize Hayek as being "a little
> propagandistic rather than scientific" but in turn you recomend
> Asimov's Foundation Series?
>
> *Boggle*
You get the picture! Have to counterbalance his prejudice, right? :)
Guido den Broeder
> Now I'm curious. Which theory(s) of the universe predicts that a "planned economy" will "reach good results?" The Big Bust? :-)
Sounds better than the Big Bite, which predicts good results coming from
a free market economy! LOL
> >Certainly in environmental matters a planned economy should be able to do better than a free market
> Why? And why didn't the USSR?
Wrong government. Why? Because you have to look beyond immediate gains
if you want to tackle environmental problems.
> Huh? The "good results" expected from a "planned economy" don't include wealth?
Wealth is just one aspect of life. IMHO it doesn't rate above all
others, like health, social cohesion, knowledge, safety, freedom of
speech etc. Some of these are better favoured by a free market, others
by a planned economy. That's the main reason why I think a mix of the
two would be optimal.
> Wait a minute! If socialists
You mean communists?
> can't plan a national economy, and
> capitalists can't plan a national economy, then...then... [he hesitates,
> terrified of the inescapable conclusion] OhmyGod, then NOBODY can
> plan a national economy! Nooooooo! :-)
How about (second try) a democracy with a planned economy?
> Um, in "troubled times," aren't long-term projections even LESS reliable?
Depends on the troubles. At the moment, regarding environmental issues,
long-term planning is the only way to go. Btw economic projections for
say 15-20 years are easier to make than projections for 1-4 years. I can
know, it's my field of expertise and I'm as good as they come. You don't
need to have exact predictions, but you do need scenario's (several of
them, preferably) if you want to make plans.
Guido den Broeder
>
> Guido den Broeder <bro...@bart.nl> writes:
> >I think the odds would be better for a planned democracy than for a planned police state (the type we've seen so far, mostly).
> God's green earth would suggest that "the odds" favor the other result?
> Other than wishful thinking, I mean. :-)
The odds to have any form of success, those were. Better rub eyes again.
> The natives killed off by the Europeans weren't "citizens". What a card! Hyuck hyuck!
Because their skin colour was different? You are treading on dangerous
ground here, boy!
> Going off-off-topic for a moment, anyone know the pre-Columbian population of the Americas? Was it comparable to the tens of millions of "citizens" exterminated by Twentieth Century police states (e.g. Nazi Germany, the USSR, Czarist Russia, Maoist China, Kampuchea, North korea, etc.)?
Most certainly, as a percentage of the total world population. That is
without adding the millions that were killed in Africa, Oceania and Asia
by the same imperialistic monarchies, republics and democracies. Btw I'm
not so sure that North Korea belongs to your list. Germany started the
killing way before it became a police state (Africa).
Guido den Broeder
> Guido den Broeder wrote:
> Why try to bait people? You know what you're writing is bullshit.
My, are we friendly today.
> I'll admit that the US is the biggest polluter in the world,
Aha!
> but that's
> simply due to the insane amount of motor vehicles we have. As far as
> industrial pollution goes, Socialist countries have historically been
> the worst offenders in the second half of the 20th century. Eastern
> Europe in the early 90's was covered in a thick patina of grime (unsure
> what the situation is now...).
>
> Socialist ("planned", whatever) economies/countries are doomed to
> environmental failure, because there is no incentive whatsoever for
> industry to attempt to be environmentally friendly.
Socialism and economy planning are two very different things. The
incentive "caring for our children" should IMHO be sufficient, the
problem in a free market economy however is that companies have none.
They only have shareholders, and these want immediate gains. A planned
economy doesn't have to overcome this obstacle.
Socialism has more to do with you to distribute the wealth (any wealth):
more evenly than with liberalism.
> > That said, it is to be expected that wealth is larger with a free market - but the drawbacks should not be overlooked.
> But "wealth" is the prerequisite for any other type of meaningful value,
Really? Do you think eg the ancient Greeks had no values, despite their
wealth being only a tiny fraction of yours today?
> He was referring rhetorically to the Russian/Chinese communist tradition
> of five year plans. And why bother to plan at all (especially for
> several decades) when you know that your original plan will be revealed
> eventually as heinously misguided, and when private industry can react
> to events much more quickly than a government?
Because the reactions of private industry may not always be the desired
reaction. May I remind you that what I'm saying here is not fiction, but
common practice in western Europe?
> > Sorry to disappoint you again, but there are many more people in the US living below the poverty line than in western Europe. What is simply called poor in your country, would be called an atrocity over here.
> The original poster was attempting to draw a comparison between the US
> and planned economies, not Western Europe (you guys are close, but not
> there yet).
Close to what? I have no desire to be close to what you have!
> But with a budget 33% of GDP (for the Netherlands), it's
> not hard to see how you can spoon-feed your welfare moms out of
> poverty. That kind of obscene waste is such a disincentive to real
> productivity that one ought to be ashamed...
Our productivity is higher than yours, measured per hour. And that is
not counting the high and very important production of raising fine
children. Welfare, btw, is just a tiny fraction of these 33% of GDP.
That figure comes closer to the total of social security, which includes
disability, sickness and unemployment benefits, as well as old age
pensions, student loans, rental subsidies and health care.
Yes, we care for our citizens, including the ones that for any decent
reason cannot cope on their own (but pay premiums for this care in
better times!). Over here, we count that as a good thing, and a natural
part of our way of life. We are proud of this and doing very well
economically at the same time (and remember that you have much more
natural resources than we have). In my eyes, your social system is
bordering on the barbaric.
JSpectre07
It doesn't matter. An economy on a national scale is something that is FAR too
complex to plan. Hundreds of millions of people conducting billions of
transactions based on their wants and needs every single day... easier to make
the sun come up than to plan such a thing. Of course, that doesn't keep our
scumbag President from claiming that he is somehow responsible for "the
economy" every chance he gets... it even works on some people...
Pat
"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine.
Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
--Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
"It's the economy, stupid."
-Bill Clinton campaign slogan, 1992
JSpectre07
>Ever heard of the United Nations? Or (since the US aren't paying their
>fees to this organization)
The US more than "pays its fees" to this "organization" by providing the threat
of force to back up its insane policies. If you want to complain about
countries that freeload off the UN look no farther than the continent of
Africa.
Pat
When I am king you will be first against the wall
With your opinion which is of no consequence at all.
Guido den Broeder
>
> >How about (second try) a democracy with a planned economy?
>
> It doesn't matter. An economy on a national scale is something that is FAR too complex to plan. Hundreds of millions of people conducting billions of transactions based on their wants and needs every single day...
Hmmm. My guess is we should appoint AI governors to do the
micro-management! Wow, that sounds innovative :)
All we need now is someone to write a good AI program ... er ... Brian?
Regards,
Guido
Guido den Broeder
> The US more than "pays its fees" to this "organization" by providing the > threat of force to back up its insane policies.
So do other countries, and these do pay their fees. And the whole idea
is for the strong to protect the weak, right?
> about countries that freeload off the UN look no farther than the continent of Africa
I absolutely agree about some of them (in Asia, too), but also note that
a lot of African nations partake in peacekeeping operations around the
globe, and/or harbour many more refugees than we do in Europe.
Regards,
Guido
her...@apostate.com
HA
Guido den Broeder wrote:
> Gary Hladik wrote:
> > All kidding aside, perhaps Mr. den Broeder could explain what he means by "independent source?" Preferably with examples?
>
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
JSpectre07 <jspec...@aol.comnospam> wrote in article
<19990204132006...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
> Of course, that doesn't keep our
> scumbag President from claiming that he is somehow responsible for "the
> economy" every chance he gets... it even works on some people...
Hey, it worked for Reagan, so why not?
Grifman
<bro...@bart.nl> wrote:
>Gary Hladik wrote:
>> All kidding aside, perhaps Mr. den Broeder could explain what he means by "independent source?" Preferably with examples?
>
>Ever heard of the United Nations? Or (since the US aren't paying their
>fees to this organization) perhaps the proceedings of the world
>conferences on environmental issues (climate and such, remember Rio?).
>
>> Does Russia have an endangered species law?
>
>Yes, it does. They are presently doing good work in eastern Siberia, for
>instance, to preserve the wildlife.
>
>> Is Mr. den Broeder suggesting that the figures are fudged somehow? If so, on what evidence?
>
>No, I'm merely saying that a statement from country x saying that
>pollution in country x is less than in country y (former? enemy),
>without giving any incling on how this pollution is measured, gives me
>little info. It could well be that the environmental problems in Russia
>are worse than in the US (I never said they weren't), but personally I
>haven't seen any evidence on this.
>
(snip)
You must not be reading the same environmental literature that I am.
The former Soviet Union is a toxic wasteland in many areas. Because
of communism, there was no countervailing environmental movement such
as developed in the West. So production at any cost to meet the
inevitable 5 year plan was the standard operating procedure.
For example, the Aral Sea in Central Asia is a environmental disaster
on an almost unheard of magnitude. For years the Soviets drained the
sea to irrigate cotton fields in Central Asia, an area totally
unsuited for cotton. The sea - formerly one of the largest bodies of
inland water in the world (!) is now almost gone, with fisheries,
wildlife, etc gone with it. Salts from the now dry lakebeds blow into
Central Asia causing all sorts of respiratory and cancer problems.
The constant and heavy irrigation has also virtually destroyed the
soil due to salt buildup.
Let's move to the north. A number of rivers flowing to the Artic are
extremely polluted, as Soviet oil production routinely dumped waste
products into the rivers. Many of them are polluted enough that
people should not be eating the fish, though they do to survive.
Soviets routinely dumped nuclear waste into the Arctic Ocean, making
it their private dumping ground. Reator cores, old worn out nuclear
submarines - they can all be found at the bottom of the Arctic.
Of course, then, there's Chernobyl. We all know about that, except
the author above apparently :) Only, the worst nuclear catastrophe in
world history.
All in all, if you had done any amount of basic research, it would be
clear that the former Soviet Union is one of the most polluted places
on earth . . .
Grifman
JSpectre07
>
I'm sorry, are you talking about Ronald "I presided over the most incredible
economic boom in the history of the world" Reagan? Ronald "I might not have
been the one clever enough to come up with Reaganomics but I was smart enough
to see it would work" Reagan? Ronald "The focus of my Presidency has been
destroying the Soviet Union and reviving a near-dead American economy" Reagan?
THAT Ronald Reagan?
Pat
"I've not taken your time this evening merely to ask you to trust me. Instead,
I ask you to trust yourselves. That's what America is all about. Our struggle
for nationhood, our unrelenting fight for freedom, our very existence- these
have all rested on the assurance that you must be free to shape your life as
you are best able to, that no one can stop you from reaching higher or take
from you the creativity that has made America the envy of mankind."
-Ronald Reagan, Address to the Nation on Federal Tax Reduction Legislation,
July 27, 1981
jim borynec
>
>Socialist ("planned", whatever) economies/countries are doomed to
>environmental failure, because there is no incentive whatsoever for
>commoditization of pollution rights, no angry hordes of Greenpeace
>protestors chaining themselves to your plants, no embarrasing TV
>exposes, no governmental environmental oversight (the government runs
>the company -> conflict of interest). The fact that many of these
>absent checks are political rather than strictly economic just
>highlights the fact that democracy and capitalism go hand in
>hand...democracy -> property rights -> capitalism, while communist
>tyranny -> state ownership -> planned economy.
I'd be careful about generalizing too much about
planned economies and tyrannies. If you look at what
the *people* around lake Baikal did for it's environmental
protection in the face of government and "big business"
opposition, you might realize that things aren't always
so black and white.
j.b.
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> On sheer principle I I refuse to buy a game which has a economic
> model that says a planned economy reaches better results than a
> free market.
You shouldn't be so sure of that prejudice: what model of organisation
do the most successful companies use internally? Free or planned?
--
Best wishes!
Geoffrey Tobin
Email: G.T...@latrobe.edu.au
WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> Guido den Broeder wrote in message <01be4d53$8889a920$0100007f@localhost>...
> >What a peculiar principle! In real life, this matter is far from settled.
>
> In the dreams of Marxists, maybe.
Funny vitamin B2. Btw, when are you Bananas going to change from
Pyjamas
into work clothes?
You should compare the Communist Manifesto with modern US practice:
they're
a lot closer than your petty philosophy imagines.
Besides, Marx was more in favor of the free market than Adam Smith, in
the
sense that Marx wanted zero government, whereas Smith wanted some
regulation
to prevent collusion and oligopolies. Both Marx and Smith would
immediately
point out that the US is very far from a pure free market model, both
because
of the intrusive nature of its Federal, State and County governments,
and
because its large corporations are inconsistent with a free economy,
because
economic freedom requires many small, independent units, and no large
units.
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> ... And why bother to plan at all (especially for
> several decades) when you know that your original plan will be revealed
> eventually as heinously misguided, and when private industry can react
> to events much more quickly than a government?
What a blind argument. Don't you know that private industry makes
plans, too?
If planning is bad, then why do they do that?
And why does Singapore (a totally planned society) do so well?
> The original poster was attempting to draw a comparison between the US
> and planned economies, not Western Europe (you guys are close, but not
> there yet).
But Western Europe (and Japan) are far more planned than Soviet Russia
ever was. They have regulations on pollution, regulations on
government,
regulations and plans for everything.
As for the USA, don't you know that State governments also have plans?
Why do you suppose those roads were built? Was it by throwing a dice,
that a road was built today?
And as for freedom, can you refuse if the State government wants your
land?
> But with a budget 33% of GDP (for the Netherlands), it's
> not hard to see how you can spoon-feed your welfare moms out of
> poverty.
Hmm, now what is the latest US Federal budget? One trillion and how
many dollars? Add in the State, County and City budgets and you have
one whopping tax bill in the good ol' USA too. To put it politely,
your economic hypocrisy confounds only you.
> That kind of obscene waste is such a disincentive to real
> productivity that one ought to be ashamed...
Obscene waste? Paper money? Electronic numbers? What a lousy
sense of values you have! In the wonderful Calvin Coolidge 1920's
and the 1930's that his policies produced, millions of working lives
were discarded. That was the real waste.
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> The essential flaw with entirely planned economies is
> that they are so patently against human nature that
> the only means of putting them into place involves
> copious use of lethal force against the citizenry.
>
> 20 million dead. Thank you, Stalin.
How many people has Lee Kwan Yew killed? Much closer to zero than can
be said
of any US President in history.
Gary Hladik
>Gary Hladik wrote:
>> All kidding aside, perhaps Mr. den Broeder could explain what he
>> means by "independent source?" Preferably with examples?
>Ever heard of the United Nations?
"United Nations?" Is that a newspaper? Oh, wait, he means the
*political* organization! Yeah, aren't they headquartered in some US city
east of the Rocky Moutains? :-)
>Or (since the US aren't paying their fees to this organization)
Heehee. If Mr. den Broeder hadn't assured me below that he's not "attacking"
the USA, I'd interpret that as a not-so-subtle dig. :-)
>perhaps the proceedings of the world
>conferences on environmental issues (climate and such, remember Rio?).
OK, I'll bite. What does the "independent" United Nations write about
the relative severity of pollution in the US and the former Soviet Union
(FSU)?
>> Does Russia have an endangered species law?
>Yes, it does. They are presently doing good work in eastern Siberia, for
>instance, to preserve the wildlife.
I'm impressed (no, really). When was it passed? Were any Soviet-era
industrial projects, dams, etc. postponed or cancelled due to this law?
>> Is Mr. den Broeder suggesting that the figures are fudged somehow?
>> If so, on what evidence?
>No, I'm merely saying that a statement from country x saying that
Perhaps Mr. den Broeder didn't read my post carefully. The quote was from
the news magazine US News & World Report, not from the US government. BTW,
other US news organizations (also not affiliated with the government) have
published similar stories.
>pollution in country x is less than in country y (former? enemy),
>without giving any incling on how this pollution is measured, gives me
>little info. It could well be that the environmental problems in Russia
>are worse than in the US (I never said they weren't),
100% correct. What he wrote (in another post) is that US pollution is
just as bad as Russia's. Unfortunately his supporting data were
(inadvertently, I'm sure) omitted. :-)
>but personally I haven't seen any evidence on this.
[sigh] He *didn't* read my post. :-)
>> Ah, now I understand. The USSR, though the archtypical "planned
>> economy," wasn't a WELL-planned economy! In other words, it's not the
>> system, it's the people!
>Not entirely, it was also the system. First of all, apart from having a
>more or less planned economy,
More. :-)
>the USSR also had a certain type of government, right?
Correct. The only type of government, I believe, that could implement
such a comprehensively planned economy.
>Second, I personally don't think that a fully planned
>economy (abstract notion, but still) would yield optimal results, just
>like a pure free market won't.
That would depend on the definition of the word "optimal," wouldn't it?
(Sorry, that damn Clinton has us *all* doing it!) :-)
>> Well, at the risk of appearing rude,
>Well, you are rude.
But lovable. Don't forget lovable. :-)
>And quite unnecessary, too, since I've been nothing but polite myself.
Agreed. That crack about US contributions to the UN was very polite. :-)
>> >I humbly disagree. Even with a given over-all level of technology,
>> >research could have led to quite different results.
>> And a different technology, thus violating the conditions I stipulated.
>No, you were talking LEVEL of tech. You can have different tech of the
>same level.
Wrong-O. What I actually wrote was:
Well, it seems to me that the same population at the same economic
level and the same technology will produce the same pollutants,
regardless of its current economic ideology.
Not same "overall level of technology" as Mr. den Broeder misquoted, but the
*same* technology. As in identical.
>> The same internal combustion engine will produce the same pollutants,
>> regardless of whether it's being driven by a capitalist or a socialist.
>Precisely. What we need is a greener engine of the same capacity.
Or a lighter car and a smaller engine. Or better catalytic converters.
Or a ban on automobiles. And so on...
>> In the US, the "incentive" to add the converters is legal/political,
>> not economic.
>That's why government is important as well, not just the type of
>economy.
Then we're in basic agreement.
>My point was that the instruments any government can use are
>different for each type of economic system.
I'd say there's a great deal of overlap. Even the "democratic" USA
imposed "autocratic" wage and price controls during the Nixon era (not
for anti-pollution purposes, but the potential is there).
>> BTW, if such incentives are so much easier to implement in a "planned
>> economy," why didn't the USSR have them?
>Because the government had other priorities, such as spreading their
>beliefs on communism over the whole world and spending 20% of their
>budget on the military.
Again we seem to be in agreement: In perhaps the most "planned" economy
in the world, pollution curbs were no easier to implement than in the
"less planned" USA.
[snip comments about lawsuits to recover environmental damages]
>That has little to do with the type of economy, don't you think?
Um, since that's about what I wrote in my first post to this thread, yes,
that's what I think. :-)
>Any
>decent government would grant you that right, whatever the economic
>system.
Again, we're in agreement. It's the government model, not the economic
model, that's important.
>> >it doesn't follow that that would always be so in a planned economy!
>>
>> Logically, no. Practically, almost always. As an exercise, class,
>> enumerate all the "planned economy" nations in history and rank their
>> level of free speech from 1 to 10, with the USA at 9 and the USSR at 2
>> (both circa 1985).
>Hmm, that would put my own country right off the scale (25 or so?).
Fascinating. Perhaps Mr. den Broeder would care to:
1) Explain why he considers "his country" a "planned economy" nation
2) Explain how the level of free speech in "his country" exceeds that of
the USA by such a wide margin. From the figure of 25 I would conclude,
for example, that it's perfectly legal to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded
theater, and that newspapers can print with impunity stories that
would be considered libelous in the USA.
>May I remind you of all the book-burning in your country?
WHAT book-burning?
>And how would Darwin,
British, I thought.
>Martin Luther King,
He has his own holiday.
>the Mc Carthy victims,
McCarthy was disgraced and his name became an epithet.
>the Vietnam protestors,
The anti-war movement thrived. Jane Fonda won.
>and the Indian nations
HUH???
>feel about your rating? To name just a few!
See above.
BTW, that was very polite! :-)
>> > Exactly. But the Western governments responded to the movements by
>> > ... making plans!!!
>> Really? Funny, some of my relatives are farmers, and they never
>> heard of the US Five Year Plan for Agriculture. And I guess I was sick
>> the day my company announced its government-mandated share of the
>> People's Fiber Optic Quota.
>I can believe that the US made much less work of tackling the problems
>at hand than other western nations, being such a great country already,
>but surely there must be something?
Sorry, I can't decipher that paragraph.
>Look, I can understand your desire to defend your nation
And I thought I was just commenting on SMAC! :-)
>(even when I never attacked it in any way!),
Certainly not by mentioning overdue UN bills or supposed examples of
repressed speech! :-)
>but you really don't think that you have the best of everything, do you?
Huh? Where did THAT come from?
OK, I'll bite again. For the record, I don't think *anyone* has the best
of *everything*. Not I, not Mr. den Broeder, not Bill Gates. :-)
>And I don't think it appropriate to try
>and ridicule others in the process as well.
I haven't ridiculed anyone. I *have* ridiculed some ridiculous ideas.
Not the same thing, don't ya know. :-)
>Btw would it come as too vicious a blow to you
Huh? Why would it be any kind of a "blow" at all?
>to know that two of the
>most prominent advisory bodies in the Netherlands are
Insert fanfare.
>(1) the Central Planning Bureau and (2) the Social & Cultural Planning
>Bureau?
[gasp] The CPB and the SCPB! The very foundations of Dutch government!
The heart and soul of the Netherlands! The veritable muscle and sinew of
a vibrant, yet curiously eco-friendly economy! The--
Um, what do they do again? :-)
Gary
Gary Hladik
>Gary Hladik wrote:
>> Now I'm curious. Which theory(s) of the universe predicts that a
>> "planned economy" will "reach good results?" The Big Bust? :-)
>Sounds better than the Big Bite, which predicts good results coming from
>a free market economy! LOL
Because, as we all know, "good results" never come from "free market"
economies! Oh, wait... :-)
>> >Certainly in environmental matters a planned economy should be able
>> >to do better than a free market
>> Why? And why didn't the USSR?
>Wrong government.
In other words, government, not economic model, is the key factor. Then
we agree.
[snip]
>> Huh? The "good results" expected from a "planned economy" don't
>> include wealth?
>Wealth is just one aspect of life.
Correct.
>IMHO it doesn't rate above all others, like health,
Poor countries generally have poor health.
>social cohesion,
Haven't a clue what that means.
>knowledge,
Schools and research cost money.
>safety,
Cops cost money. Safety inspections cost money. Fire trucks cost money.
>freedom of speech etc.
One's "freedom of speech" is greatly enhanced if one can buy a TV station
or a newspaper. :-)
>Some of these are better favoured by a free market, others
>by a planned economy.
Which ones, and why?
>That's the main reason why I think a mix of the
>two would be optimal.
[shrug] Since neither economic model exists in pure form, all we've seen
in practice are various mixes. It would be more useful to know *which*
mix is "optimal."
>> Wait a minute! If socialists
>You mean communists?
Since communism is a form of socialism, I mean socialists. :-)
>> can't plan a national economy, and
>> capitalists can't plan a national economy, then...then... [he hesitates,
>> terrified of the inescapable conclusion] OhmyGod, then NOBODY can
>> plan a national economy! Nooooooo! :-)
>How about (second try) a democracy with a planned economy?
Which one?
>> Um, in "troubled times," aren't long-term projections even LESS reliable?
>Depends on the troubles. At the moment, regarding environmental issues,
>long-term planning is the only way to go.
Because?
>Btw economic projections for
>say 15-20 years are easier to make than projections for 1-4 years.
^^^^^^
Oh, I don't know. I can throw darts at a four-year dartboard as "easily"
as I can throw darts at a twenty-year board. :-)
>I can know, it's my field of expertise and I'm as good as they come.
How good do "they" come?
>You don't need to have exact predictions,
Which is good, because they're generally pretty hard to find.
>but you do need scenario's (several of them, preferably) if you want
>to make plans.
If long-term projections are accurate, why would anyone need more than one?
Gary
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
<36B9D02F...@bart.nl>...
> Socialism has more to do with you to distribute the wealth (any wealth):
> more evenly than with liberalism.
Please note that he is using the European meaning of the word "liberalism"
(an ideology based on the freedom of the individual) and not the wierd
US meaning (anything not conservative (again in the US meaning) ).
How anybody could confuse socialism with liberalism is beyond me.
Gary Hladik
>Gary Hladik wrote:
>>
>> Guido den Broeder <bro...@bart.nl> writes:
>> >I think the odds would be better for a planned democracy than for a
>> >planned police state (the type we've seen so far, mostly).
>> Um, if the experiments so far "mostly" give one result, then what on
>> God's green earth would suggest that "the odds" favor the other result?
>> Other than wishful thinking, I mean. :-)
>The odds to have any form of success, those were. Better rub eyes again.
OK. [rub-a-dub-dub] Nope, I *still* don't see the words "any form of
success" in that post. Maybe some wishful thinking would help. :-)
>> The natives killed off by the Europeans weren't "citizens". What a
>> card! Hyuck hyuck!
>Because their skin colour was different?
Huh? More likely because they weren't European, and therefore not
citizens of the colonizing European nations. Being born in the Americas,
that's kind of a given, right? Duuuuuh. :-)
>You are treading on dangerous ground here, boy!
Mr. den Broeder may be unaware that the term "boy" has been used in the
US as a racial slur. Fortunately, I'm too polite to take offense. :-)
>> Going off-off-topic for a moment, anyone know the pre-Columbian
>> population of the Americas? Was it comparable to the tens of millions
>> of "citizens" exterminated by Twentieth Century police states (e.g. Nazi
>> Germany, the USSR, Czarist Russia, Maoist China, Kampuchea, North korea,
>> etc.)?
>Most certainly, as a percentage of the total world population.
Lacking actual numbers, that answer is a bit vague. Fortunately, I
was able to find the answer to my own question in a 1997 article in US
News & World Report. Over the years, estimates of the pre-Columbian
population of the Americas have ranged from a few million to well over
100 million. The current "consensus" figure is 50-60 million, roughly
comparable to the estimated European population at the time. Most of
the natives lived south of the Rio Grande (i.e. including islands).
Interestingly, the European interlopers were *directly* responsible for
relatively few native deaths. The vast majority fell to diseases
inadvertently brought to the New World.
>That is
>without adding the millions that were killed in Africa, Oceania and Asia
>by the same imperialistic monarchies, republics and democracies.
Which is just as irrelevant to the original point (killing of a state's
own citizens) as the deaths of American natives.
>Btw I'm not so sure that North Korea belongs to your list.
Mr. den Broeder is perhaps unaware of the severe famine currently afflicting
North Korea?
>Germany started the killing way before it became a police state (Africa).
[sigh] Once again Mr. den Broeder has confused the killing of foreigners
with the killing of a nation's own citizens.
Gary
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> Mr den Broeder wrote:
> >No, I'm merely saying that a statement from country x saying that
>
> Perhaps Mr. den Broeder didn't read my post carefully. The quote was from
> the news magazine US News & World Report, not from the US government.
Gary, why do you identify `country' with `government'?
> >Not entirely, it was also the system. First of all, apart from [the USSR]
> >having a more or less planned economy,
>
> More. :-)
Joking! Shooting and deliberately starving people doesn't equate to
planning.
Stalin didn't even plan a defence until Hitler hit him in the eye, two
years
after the rest of mainland Europe had been subjugated.
Stalin as a planner? Give us a break!
Next you'll be saying that Mao had a plan other than intimidating
everyone
around him who showed any talent.
I'll tell you what planning is: it's when the developer builds the
street
beside your new house, it's when you hire a landscape gardener, it's
when
the government saves its money before it spends it, it's when you study
before an exam, it's when a company decides what markets it wants to
expand
into next. That's planning. And it's good.
If you mean centrally planned everything, then sure that doesn't work:
but
the solutions isn't zero planning, it's sensible planning, including
preparing
well for what is your direct responsibility, delegating what is beyond
your
personal ability, recognising your limits, promoting people better than
yourself, and minding your own business.
> >the USSR also had a certain type of government, right?
>
> Correct. The only type of government, I believe, that could implement
> such a comprehensively planned economy.
Such a comprehensively neglected economy, exceeded only by the
lumpen-capitalist
clique that has followed them.
> >Second, I personally don't think that a fully planned
> >economy (abstract notion, but still) would yield optimal results, just
> >like a pure free market won't.
>
> That would depend on the definition of the word "optimal," wouldn't it?
> (Sorry, that damn Clinton has us *all* doing it!) :-)
Times were when `sex' meant sexual intercourse, not foreplay.
> Agreed. That crack about US contributions to the UN was very polite. :-)
Yes, it was, considering that the US government expects the UN to agree
to all its demands. If it thinks its bill is too high, then why
doesn't it renegotiate it, and in the meantime pay what it thinks
is its fair share?
> >> The same internal combustion engine will produce the same pollutants,
> >> regardless of whether it's being driven by a capitalist or a socialist.
No, it also depends on the grade of petrol, how much use is made of the
accelerator and brake, the number of passengers, and on what accessories
are used.
> >Precisely. What we need is a greener engine of the same capacity.
>
> Or a lighter car and a smaller engine.
Yes, my Ford Festiva does about 400 miles on an 8-gallon tank.
But of course it was built in Korea to Japanese specs. :)
> Or better catalytic converters.
> Or a ban on automobiles.
Don't ban the wheels because the engine stinks! Maybe one day
electric engines will perform acceptably in most conditions?
> I'd say there's a great deal of overlap. Even the "democratic" USA
> imposed "autocratic" wage and price controls during the Nixon era (not
> for anti-pollution purposes, but the potential is there).
Yes, don't you think that was bizarre, coming from the Republican party?
Btw, Nixon and Kissinger's mission to China wasn't ground-breaking as
sometimes claimed - it was preceded by significant visits to China
from Britain, Australia and other Western democracies. The fanfare made
by the Nixon camp on the importance of his visit to the ailing Mao
was as ridiculous as would be any claim that, say, Clinton opened
up the Vietnamese market to the world. Maybe Nixon could claim to have
been the US President who sold-out Taiwan, but that's nothing to be
proud of.
> Again we seem to be in agreement: In perhaps the most "planned" economy
> in the world, pollution curbs were no easier to implement than in the
> "less planned" USA.
The point is that the USSR had zero planning against pollution. How can
zero plans equal `most planned'?
> Again, we're in agreement. It's the government model, not the economic
> model, that's important.
Let's not go overboard. America inherited large elements of both
Parliamentary representation and the economic system from Britain.
In the absence of either, the US experiment would have failed.
But the US government was always _very_ interventionist. When the
govt takes property from someone, with zero compensation, I call that
intervention. When it hands it to someone else, that's intervention
too. And it's always done both of those, usually on a massive
scale. The State and Local governments have been just as bad,
within their abilities.
Did that intervention advance the economy? I have serious doubts,
but the government has always justified it by saying that it has.
Whereas just planning is for the government to offer a price for the
land,
and if the owner won't sell, then bid higher, and if there's no agreed
price, then the govt should back down. Anything else is theft.
In other words, if the govt wants to enter a market, then it should play
by the same rules as every other participant.
> >> Logically, no. Practically, almost always. As an exercise, class,
> >> enumerate all the "planned economy" nations in history and rank their
> >> level of free speech from 1 to 10, with the USA at 9 and the USSR at 2
> >> (both circa 1985).
Singapore? No comment. :)
> >May I remind you of all the book-burning in your country?
>
> WHAT book-burning?
Maybe he means the witch-burning?
> >And how would Darwin,
>
> British, I thought.
Maybe he has in mind the restrictions on teaching Evolution in some US
States?
> >Martin Luther King,
>
> He has his own holiday.
`I have a dream.' Bang! One more free speaker shot dead.
It's no freedom when the exercise of your rights puts your life in
danger.
> >the Mc Carthy victims,
>
> McCarthy was disgraced and his name became an epithet.
It's not as though he acted alone, you know!
Disgraced according to whom?
I don't recall Ronald Reagan thinking poorly of McCarthy,
though they were contemporaries.
Many people from McCarthy's party still agree with what
he tried to do.
Had he not attacked the US military as presumed traitors,
would he have fallen?
> >the Vietnam protestors,
>
> The anti-war movement thrived. Jane Fonda won.
Hardly! Firstly the hippies killed their revolution by drugging
themselves
stupid. Then Nixon was elected, and bombed Cambodia so badly that Pol
Pot
came to power as an anti-American `patriot'. Then America attacked many
more nations (mostly their innocent citizens). The anti-war protestors
won nothing.
> >and the Indian nations
>
> HUH???
People robbed of their property, relegated to remote reservations,
have no freedom of speech, because noone hears them.
> >> > Exactly. But the Western governments responded to the movements by
> >> > ... making plans!!!
>
> >> Really? Funny, some of my relatives are farmers, and they never
> >> heard of the US Five Year Plan for Agriculture.
No, but they were happy to take the money.
> >> And I guess I was sick
> >> the day my company announced its government-mandated share of the
> >> People's Fiber Optic Quota.
Probably because AT&T mandated that. :)
As for the ecoonomic greatness of the US, the location of Jamestown in
Virginia
instead of in the Sahara or Antarctica probably had a major impact on
the
settlers' prospects.
Btw, does the US have zoning laws?
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> >> Wait a minute! If socialists
>
> >You mean communists?
>
> Since communism is a form of socialism, I mean socialists. :-)
No, a communist society has no government.
In the socialist model, the government exists to serve the people,
to the extent that the people want that.
In the conservative model (Bismarck, Thatcher, Howard), government
exists to bludgeon
people into submission to the government's propaganda, so the people
will work harder
for lower wages to make the rulers rich.
The self-proclaimed Communist Party governments used the conservative
model.
> >How about (second try) a democracy with a planned economy?
>
> Which one?
Most of them, actually. Zoning laws, freeways, land confiscation.
Don't tell me you haven't noticed?
> >> Um, in "troubled times," aren't long-term projections even LESS reliable?
No, because knee-jerk responses lead to chaos. In a storm, a ship's
crew
don't throw their training to the wind (so to speak :) and they still
keep in mind where they were heading.
> >Depends on the troubles. At the moment, regarding environmental issues,
> >long-term planning is the only way to go.
>
> Because?
Because when you see the dust storm in the horizon, you head for
shelter,
you don't hang around until it sand-blasts your eyes out.
> >Btw economic projections for
> >say 15-20 years are easier to make than projections for 1-4 years.
> ^^^^^^
>
> Oh, I don't know. I can throw darts at a four-year dartboard as "easily"
> as I can throw darts at a twenty-year board. :-)
Keep throwing the darts, you'll notice that the more there are, the more
distinct the pattern is.
Guido den Broeder
>
> Eh, perhaps if the UN wasn't used to bash the US... (Probably not true, but I get so sick of hearing all the anti-US resolutions being passed in the UN.)
Have there been sanctions against the US? I don't seem to remember, but
I could be wrong.
Regards,
Guido
Guido den Broeder
That is what I said. I called both the US and Russia pretty bad. But I
still think it's tough to say which is worse, without some means to
measure pollution. Don't forget that while the US may look better off on
the surface, much damage is done in other parts of the world by US
companies to satisfy the US free market consumers. Also, a comparatively
very large part of the world's scarce resources is spent by the US. In
addition, the US has had, and is still having, their share of oil,
nuclear and wildlife disasters (remember the buffalo?).
Not that it matters which is worse, as long as we agree that much work
has to be done in both cases. I'm merely arguing against statements like
"we don't have to do a thing, because look at the former USSR, they are
so much worse"! I may be exaggerating a little here, but this type of
argument is consistently being made by US (and other) representatives at
conferences like Rio.
And I'm arguing against ignorant nsg posters who claim that a free
market has no pollution problems or that solving those problems needs no
planning.
Regards,
Guido
Guido den Broeder
flame others, I see no merit in replying to this or any future posts by
you. In fact, I have just muzzled you, so I won't even be able to see
anything you post from now on. The few questions you have asked have
been answered elsewhere.
Grow up, Gary!
Paul A. Byers
police
> >> > states. More people died when the Europeans "colonized" the
America's, > > to give just one example.
This statment needs clarification. Are you maintiaining that the
Europeans and the Indians were both citizens of the same country? I
think the figure of 20 million killed in the "colonization" of the
Americas would be hard to meet also. The population densities were
not that high.
Just a nit.
Pavel
Guido den Broeder
>
> > >> > Also, killing citizens is unfortunately not restricted to
> police
> > >> > states. More people died when the Europeans "colonized" the
> America's, > > to give just one example.
>
> This statment needs clarification. Are you maintiaining that the
> Europeans and the Indians were both citizens of the same country?
No, just that most casualties were citizens, not soldiers. They had
their own nations and goverments, some of which still exist today. At
some point after the USA was founded, the native tribes there were
considered citizens of the USA, even while they didn't know it. It took
a while for everyone to realize that this gave them certain rights, too.
The same happened in the other new countries.
> I think the figure of 20 million killed in the "colonization" of the
> Americas would be hard to meet also. The population densities were
> not that high.
We're talking about a vast continent though, and a long period of time.
IIRC the figure was indeed much higher. A lot of the casualties among
the natives tribes were caused by diseases (hmmm, biological warfare!)
btw, such as tbc and even the common cold. There were many civilian
casualties on the European side as well, not in the least because they
were also fighting each other.
> Just a nit.
That's OK.
Regards,
Guido
Gary Hladik
[snip]
>You should compare the Communist Manifesto with modern US practice:
>they're a lot closer than your petty philosophy imagines.
Yeah, it's pretty scary. The US has "socialized" quite a bit in the
20th Century. Still, the US economy was never as "planned" as the
Soviet economy, which was the original comparison in this thread.
>Besides, Marx was more in favor of the free market than Adam Smith, in
>the sense that Marx wanted zero government,
Um, to achieve "zero" government, Marxism requires an
all-powerful "transition" state. How and why this state would later
"wither away" isn't made clear. To paraphrase the anti-war movement
of the Sixties: Increasing government to eliminate government is like
fucking for virginity. :-)
>whereas Smith wanted some regulation
>to prevent collusion and oligopolies. Both Marx and Smith would
>immediately
>point out that the US is very far from a pure free market model, both
>because
>of the intrusive nature of its Federal, State and County governments,
>and
Agreed. In practice, there is no "pure" capitalism or socialism.
>because its large corporations are inconsistent with a free economy,
>because
>economic freedom requires many small, independent units, and no large
>units.
Really? So "economic freedom" doesn't include the freedom for a
successful enterprise to grow? :-)
Gary
Gary Hladik
[snip]
>And why does Singapore (a totally planned society) do so well?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The government owns every business in Singapore?
[snip]
Gary
Guido den Broeder
causes of many deaths among the natives. (Uranium, too, has taken its
toll of human life.)
Greetings,
Guido
JSpectre07
>still think it's tough to say which is worse, without some means to
>measure pollution.
>double sigh< The U.S. has had an eye on the environment since the
administration of Teddy Roosevelt. To compare the amount of ecological
destruction in the US to that in the former USSR shows a lack of understanding
about just how bad things are over there. Stalin used NUKES to build lakes,
diamond mines, etc. When Soviet atomic reactors got old, they were simply
thrown in the ocean. There are areas of Russia that are so horribly radioactive
that humans simply cannot survive without a rad suit for more than a few
minutes. Contrast this sort of nonsense with the US Clean Air & Water Act, etc.
Think the USSR had an EPA? Of course not, they were too busy killing peasants
and squelching independent thought.
Pat
When I am king you will be first against the wall
With your opinion which is of no consequence at all.
JSpectre07
>> >say 15-20 years are easier to make than projections for 1-4 years.
>> ^^^^^^
>>
>> Oh, I don't know. I can throw darts at a four-year dartboard as "easily"
>> as I can throw darts at a twenty-year board. :-)
>
>Keep throwing the darts, you'll notice that the more there are, the more
>distinct the pattern is.
And here we thought the utter failure of the USSR, a 73-year peasant-killing
experiment with no positive results to it, would have shown EVERYBODY the folly
of attempting to "plan" a national economy...
It can't be done!
Jason McCullough
>>still think it's tough to say which is worse, without some means to
>>measure pollution.
>
>>double sigh< The U.S. has had an eye on the environment since the
>administration of Teddy Roosevelt. To compare the amount of ecological
>destruction in the US to that in the former USSR shows a lack of understanding
>about just how bad things are over there. Stalin used NUKES to build lakes,
>diamond mines, etc. When Soviet atomic reactors got old, they were simply
>thrown in the ocean. There are areas of Russia that are so horribly radioactive
>that humans simply cannot survive without a rad suit for more than a few
>minutes. Contrast this sort of nonsense with the US Clean Air & Water Act, etc.
>Think the USSR had an EPA? Of course not, they were too busy killing peasants
>and squelching independent thought.
Do you have any citations, or other proof of Stalin using *NUCLEAR
WEAPONS* to build a lake?
I find that really hard to swallow.
To respond by email, remove "blort" from the front of my email
address.
blort...@ou.edu
Jason McCullough
".....to identify Flavor Flav as a clown with a clock is to lose sight
of Public Enemy's goal to inspire, entertain and educate."
(from www.public-enemy.com)
Keith Francis
<bro...@bart.nl> wrote:
>Grifman wrote:
> In
>addition, the US has had, and is still having, their share of oil,
>nuclear and wildlife disasters (remember the buffalo?).
HEY !!1 Fark the buffalo !! They are ugly animals they deserve to be
killed. Now if it was penguins, then you would have a point since
everybody loves those cute little penguins !!111!
Guido den Broeder
> HEY !!1 Fark the buffalo !! They are ugly animals they deserve to be
> killed. Now if it was penguins, then you would have a point since
> everybody loves those cute little penguins !!111!
LOL!! But are they on your menu, too?
Guido den Broeder
> Stalin used NUKES to build lakes, diamond mines, etc. When Soviet atomic reactors got old, they were simply thrown in the ocean. There are areas of Russia that are so horribly radioactive that humans simply cannot survive without a rad suit for more than a few minutes. Contrast this sort of nonsense ... >
Took the word right out of my mouth!
Gary Hladik
>Since the only reason you are participating in this nsg seems to be to
>flame others,
Translation: I disagreed with some of Mr. den Broeder's points (while
agreeing with others), and he doesn't like that. Hopefully, someday
he'll learn the difference between dissent and flamage.
>I see no merit in replying to this or any future posts by you.
Nor I, if he takes disagreement as a personal affront. (See? Yet another
point of agreement!) :-)
>In fact, I have just muzzled you,
Heehee! What muzzle? A killfile? A killfile is the Usenet equivalent
of stuffing one's fingers in one's own ears, squeezing the eyes shut, and
screaming "MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB!!!" A "muzzle" is something else
entirely.
>so I won't even be able to see anything you post from now on.
I'm sure Mr. den Broeder will be much happier in his own little fantasy
world. My best wishes for a speedy recovery! :-)
>The few questions you have asked have been answered elsewhere.
Where?
>Grow up, Gary!
Hmmm. Judging by Mr. den Broeder's actions, grownups:
1) Make unsupported claims
2) Present no evidence when challenged
3) Steadfastly refuse to believe contradictory evidence
4) Throw a tantrum when contradicted
Hmmm, I don't think I'll take Mr. den Broeder's advice. :-)
Damn, I'm getting the strangest sense of deja vu here. Anybody
know if this guy is related to Eric Dybsand? :-)
Gary
Guido den Broeder
> And here we thought the utter failure of the USSR, a 73-year peasant-killing experiment with no positive results to it, would have shown EVERYBODY the folly of attempting to "plan" a national economy...
It can't be done! >
So, all the plans made by governments all over the world are doomed to
fail? Please tell me it ain't so. I'd have to quit my job!
Gary Hladik
>"Paul A. Byers" wrote:
>>
>> > >> > Also, killing citizens is unfortunately not restricted to
>> police
>> > >> > states. More people died when the Europeans "colonized" the
>> America's, > > to give just one example.
>>
>> This statment needs clarification. Are you maintiaining that the
>> Europeans and the Indians were both citizens of the same country?
>No, just that most casualties were citizens, not soldiers.
Mr. den Broeder seems to be confusing the word "citizens" with the word
"civilians" here, hence the seemingly strange claim above.
Gary
Gary Hladik
>JSpectre07 wrote:
>> And here we thought the utter failure of the USSR, a 73-year peasant-killing experiment with no positive results to it, would have shown EVERYBODY the folly of attempting to "plan" a national economy...
>It can't be done! >
>So, all the plans made by governments all over the world are doomed to
>fail?
Pretty much.
>Please tell me it ain't so. I'd have to quit my job!
Not to worry. As fast as old plans become obsolete, new ones are prepared.
:-)
Gary
Chris Byler
<G.T...@latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>Gavin Snyder wrote:
>> ... And why bother to plan at all (especially for
>> several decades) when you know that your original plan will be revealed
>> eventually as heinously misguided, and when private industry can react
>> to events much more quickly than a government?
>What a blind argument. Don't you know that private industry makes
>plans, too?
>If planning is bad, then why do they do that?
Because they have to.
A lot of them are wrong. Then those companies lose money and shift to
new strategies, or lose money and go out of business.
A few plans that work are quickly adopted by other companies, and the
companies that implement them expand.
That's _why_ private industry reacts more quickly and flexibly - it's
decentralized enough that it's _already_ trying whatever approach will
eventually be seen to work (along with several dozen approaches doomed
to failure).
>And why does Singapore (a totally planned society) do so well?
Does it? I've never heard anyone hold up Singapore as an outstanding
example of economic success.
>> The original poster was attempting to draw a comparison between the US
>> and planned economies, not Western Europe (you guys are close, but not
>> there yet).
>But Western Europe (and Japan) are far more planned than Soviet Russia
>ever was. They have regulations on pollution, regulations on
>government,
>regulations and plans for everything.
No, they have regulations and plans for quite a few things. Soviet
Russia had regulations and plans for _everything_ - down to how many
pairs of shoes this factory would produce per year. (Those quotas
were frequently not actually met...)
>As for the USA, don't you know that State governments also have plans?
>Why do you suppose those roads were built? Was it by throwing a dice,
>that a road was built today?
No, it was mostly because Senator Whosit wants to "create jobs" in his
home district. Seriously, though, although we have roads which are
more or less a success, we also had (for a long time) airline
regulations that were an abject failure, and still have a subsidized
(read: taxpayer-funded) railroad system that is almost completely
unused.
The main problem with letting governments plan things is that they
don't drop failed ideas fast enough. Private corporations drop
failures _fast_ or get dragged down - and either way, the failure
isn't around to bother anyone. Government just keeps throwing good
money after bad.
>And as for freedom, can you refuse if the State government wants your
>land?
If he said that the US is a perfectly free society, he was wrong.
Quite thoroughly wrong, in fact.
By the way, can you refuse if _your_ government wants your land (say,
to build a road on)?
>> But with a budget 33% of GDP (for the Netherlands), it's
>> not hard to see how you can spoon-feed your welfare moms out of
>> poverty.
And tax your working ones back _into_ poverty...
>Hmm, now what is the latest US Federal budget? One trillion and how
>many dollars? Add in the State, County and City budgets and you have
>one whopping tax bill in the good ol' USA too. To put it politely,
>your economic hypocrisy confounds only you.
Compare it to GDP, please. If a 100x larger country has a 50x larger
budget, which one has a higher tax burden?
Regardless, nobody's claiming that the US is a perfect free market
system. It's not. It might be more efficient if it were, but it
would also have higher income inequality, which is politically
unacceptable to enough Americans to keep it from happening.
(Democracy and free markets don't really get along very well...)
>> That kind of obscene waste is such a disincentive to real
>> productivity that one ought to be ashamed...
>Obscene waste? Paper money? Electronic numbers? What a lousy
>sense of values you have!
Are you suggesting that wasting money doesn't waste anything real?
Working lives devoted to "work" that produces nothing useful are just
as wasted as those of the unemployed. Red tape is not useful, and
raises no one's standard of living.
>In the wonderful Calvin Coolidge 1920's
>and the 1930's that his policies produced, millions of working lives
>were discarded. That was the real waste.
Coolidge? What does he have to do with it? I think you mean Hoover.
At any rate, the causes of the Great Depression are difficult to
examine because it has only happened once. _Anything_ that preceded
it could be advanced as a cause - but this is just post hoc, ergo
propter hoc, which is useless.
To return to the subject, if anything, SMAC's Planned Economy is too
lenient for realism. It should perhaps not have a -EFFIC (if EFFIC
represents the proportion of real economic output that goes in the
direction the government wants it to go), but it should definitely
have a -ECONOMY, perhaps a large one. And giving Free Market a larger
-PLANET than Planned is highly questionable considering the current
ecological state of, say, Russia. Although it could be argued that
the current green-ness of the US is more a result of democratic
government - which keeps interfering with and regulating ecological
impacts because it is popular to do so - there are also convincing
arguments that the social movement would produce similar results even
if operating through nonpolitical channels. Regardless, though, there
seems to be no evidence that a free market is any _worse_ ecologically
than a planned one, all other things being equal. Bureaucrats in
pursuit of the Five-Year Plan can disregard ecological consequences
just as easily as corporate managers.
The reason why Planned Economy works so well in SMAC is game balance -
it has to have some advantages _in the game_, or people would never
use it. It really should have had a -ECON, though. +INDUSTRY and
+SUPPORT could still have compensated, at least in some circumstances.
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"I'm not a speed reader. I'm a speed understander."
-- Isaac Asimov
Chris Byler
wrote:
>Guido den Broeder <bro...@bart.nl> skrev i artiklen
><36B9D02F...@bart.nl>...
>> Socialism has more to do with you to distribute the wealth (any wealth):
>> more evenly than with liberalism.
The sticking point is, of course, how this distribution is to be
achieved and maintained.
>Please note that he is using the European meaning of the word "liberalism"
>(an ideology based on the freedom of the individual) and not the wierd
>US meaning (anything not conservative (again in the US meaning) ).
>How anybody could confuse socialism with liberalism is beyond me.
Classical liberalism allows the wealth to distribute itself. Which
actually works remarkably well, since wealth tends to flow toward
anything that increases it.