That won't work. Hillary is already on pace to take in something like $1B in bribes, plus the hundreds of millions they already received in bribes from foreign interests in return for faovrable rulings from the State Department....
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
Yes, and just look how tax ridden the U.S. is today!!!
There's also, nothing in the constitution written, that gives the right to be wealthy either!!!
Capitalism is the ideology of stealing, just look how much white collar crime it breeds and, how much it promotes the ideology of capital wealth over bleeding others dry of theirs.
Actually the Bill of Rights protects the right to property, including accumulating wealth, with no limitation, so yes it gives the right to be wealthy , for those that can become it. Not to mention that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give rights", it outlines limitations placed on the government to limit its power to prevent our Government from treating us as the Crown did.
Really? Capitalism lead to corruption and white collar stealing? Thats why Socialists and Communists have a ruling class that amasses wealth and privilege not afforded to the average person? At least Capitalism allows people with a good idea to turn it wealth. I think I agree with Maggie Thatcher when she said "the problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money.
Actually, he didn't take it from the trash, it was food considered over time [aka expired]. Many companies get rid of food, that is perfectly fine [not all], instead of allowing employees to obtain it. Company would rather take the loss, than show any compassion for the employees!!!
Seriously? You think it's greedy that a company takes out an insurance policy to pretext itself in the case that employees are unable to continue to produce? You think that it's greedy to be responsible and to cover potential damages that could arise from losing key personnel?
It sure seems like you're willing to throw logic out the window in order to jump to judgment on others. Why? Probably because you want the market to be more favorable to your own standing. It doesn't matter that the jobs don't belong to you, that the market isn't yours to play with, and that adults are empowered to make voluntary decisions for themselves: you need to interrupt that and advocate a position that benefits you. And that, my friends, is greed.
The OPs post is really unjust for a player driven economy. You either find out how they are finding these items which you can acquire everything sold for high EC amounts or don't buy it.
Forcing this on this economy will kill it. Force items into Gold Spammer sights. And you wont be able to find anything at all. It will remove any market at all for these things using legit means. I wouldn't sell lock box ships or DOFFS if they used the OPs system. Or crafted weapons that take a ton of time to craft the right ones that will sell. It would be a waste.
You would see a lot more people selling items in General and Zone chat and avoiding the exchange all together too.
Its like you are entitled to receive everything at a fair price and you expect to find it at that fair price without actually going out and acquiring it yourself by crafting and luck.
Actually the Bill of Rights protects the right to property, including accumulating wealth, with no limitation, so yes it gives the right to be wealthy , for those that can become it. Not to mention that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give rights", it outlines limitations placed on the government to limit its power to prevent our Government from treating us as the Crown did.
Ahh, so you're " safe from the crown" , good to know .
Now how about modern day slavery (?) , be that the truly generous scraps from the table , in the forms of wages played @ Walmart & MikeyD type employment , or the enjoyment of products that are created in countries outside the US that employ deplorable working conditions .
How about them crazy numbers (that change from person to person , depending on who you ask) , about something like less then 5% of the population owning over 60% of the wealth in the US (some put it at less then 2% owning over 70%) , but whatever .
Point is that there is no stopping mechanism to greed and to moar -- which in turn places your whole economy at the whim of a select few and causes your "too big to fail" country to dance ever more precariously on a tip of a blade , both internally and in the global economic "war" , as the existing and emerging powers struggle over what little is left on an over populated planet .
... meanwhile , while the average American Joe feels that something's wrong , he still can't admit to himself how wrong things (runaway capitalism included) are, as to oppose capitalism would in his eyes be somehow un-American, and if he's anything , Joe is a patriot ...
Ahh, so you're " safe from the crown" , good to know .
Now how about modern day slavery (?) , be that the truly generous scraps from the table , in the forms of wages played @ Walmart & MikeyD type employment , or the enjoyment of products that are created in countries outside the US that employ deplorable working conditions .
How about them crazy numbers (that change from person to person , depending on who you ask) , about something like less then 5% of the population owning over 60% of the wealth in the US (some put it at less then 2% owning over 70%) , but whatever .
Point is that there is no stopping mechanism to greed and to moar -- which in turn places your whole economy at the whim of a select few and causes your "too big to fail" country to dance ever more precariously on a tip of a blade , both internally and in the global economic "war" , as the existing and emerging powers struggle over what little is left on an over populated planet .
... meanwhile , while the average American Joe feels that something's wrong , he still can't admit to himself how wrong things (runaway capitalism included) are, as to oppose capitalism would in his eyes be somehow un-American, and if he's anything , Joe is a patriot ...
It was never about being safe from the Crown, they actually tried to reconcile and stay as subjects of the Crown (albeit some did want to break away) when we were outright rejected, and more pressure put on us, thats when we left. Thats why we put the Bill of Rights in so we wouldnt have our own Govt do what England did to us.
As far as all of the whole "too big to fail" and such, thats not Capitalism. Capitalism would have let companies fail and let other companies buy the devalued businesses and let them fix them, or let them die off and other business rise to fill the vacuum. What you are speaking of is Kronie (sp) Capitalism, where the Govt picks the winners and losers, sadly that is due to the amount of Socialism that has been allowed to sneak into our government over the last 100 years. The "war on poverty" started in the 60s wasnt to end poverty, but to keep preople poor by increasing the safety net in a way that made it beneficial for a person to stay unemployed or to not try to better themselves and work to advance themselves by getting better jobs or starting thier own businesses. I worked low income jobs when I was younger, I knew I had to develop skills and knowledge to move up and get better jobs. Minimum wage jobsare starter jobs to made for people with low/no skills, you move up or move out to a better job or start your own business.
If there is anything, its more to the Federal Governments greed for "moar" power and control over the people, and less observance of checks and balances from each branch of the government and the states that is built into the Constitution because people are affraid of the backlash because they are affraid of losing votes when the Socialist cries out that "they are trying to take away your bemefits", and the Socialist has grown the entitlement system up enough to where now that people who are recieving government entitlements are now a major voting block. The entitlement system has made it so there is little incentive for advancement, thats why a small portion of the people make so much of the weallth. Many Americans have become complacent with the saftey net. Heck, if a person can take advantage of all of the entitlements that an unhandicapped person can get, it equates to $70k a year, thats well above the average income, why work so hard when you can get benefits equsting to more than the average income?
As far as all of the whole "too big to fail" and such, thats not Capitalism. Capitalism would have let companies fail and let other companies buy the devalued businesses and let them fix them, or let them die off and other business rise to fill the vacuum.
Before I answer , I just wanted you to know that I did read your whole post, and while I may not agree with it, I appreciate your POV .
That being said, I was not talking about businesses when I said " too big to fail" , but of America as a whole .
See, in an alternative 2008 , with major businesses failing, the coffers mostly empty from 2 parallel wars, plus loans & debt up the wazoo, and not enough gold to print the amounts of cash you needed to jump start your economy ... -- well, if at that point your major trading and loaning partners would have turned their backs at you (or worse, called in your loans) , your whole country could have suffered a domino like economic collapse .
Yeah , ppl don't like to imagine that it could have been that bad .
And while that may not have been the exact scenario , relying on your own devices (exporting arms & tech development) , might not have been enough to pull you through, as a country's economic power is mostly counted in products and exports, and your housing (product) and export (car) industry's were crumbling .
And that's the "too big to fail" that I was talking about ... -- as the economic fall out of a bankrupt US would have taken the world economy with it .
And even as you juggled the numbers and the loans and whatever else that was done with your partners (EU & China) behind closed doors, the slowing of the US economy had it's shockwave's felt across the globe .
That last half sentence actually means that many ppl across the world over have suffered or had their quality of life lowered because some shmuck's in the US banking / housing / car industry couldn't stop being greedy and had to be just a bit more greedy, because ... unbridled Capitalism let them get away with it .
... in the end, even without being the biggest economy , the US fulfills a ... role of an economic junction , that at present the world cannot do without , both due to globalization and other reasons . BUT, if I were to take the purely "economist" POV like you did in your post (without looking at the larger implications) , from an external POV, shoring up the US with further loans & debt may seem like an attempt at avoiding the inevitable ... , unless the produce VS import ratio changes in the US ...
Before I answer , I just wanted you to know that I did read your whole post, and while I may not agree with it, I appreciate your POV .
That being said, I was not talking about businesses when I said " too big to fail" , but of America as a whole .
See, in an alternative 2008 , with major businesses failing, the coffers mostly empty from 2 parallel wars, plus loans & debt up the wazoo, and not enough gold to print the amounts of cash you needed to jump start your economy ... -- well, if at that point your major trading and loaning partners would have turned their backs at you (or worse, called in your loans) , your whole country could have suffered a domino like economic collapse .
Yeah , ppl don't like to imagine that it could have been that bad .
And while that may not have been the exact scenario , relying on your own devices (exporting arms & tech development) , might not have been enough to pull you through, as a country's economic power is mostly counted in products and exports, and your housing (product) and export (car) industry's were crumbling .
And that's the "too big to fail" that I was talking about ... -- as the economic fall out of a bankrupt US would have taken the world economy with it .
And even as you juggled the numbers and the loans and whatever else that was done with your partners (EU & China) behind closed doors, the slowing of the US economy had it's shockwave's felt across the globe .
That last half sentence actually means that many ppl across the world over have suffered or had their quality of life lowered because some shmuck's in the US banking / housing / car industry couldn't stop being greedy and had to be just a bit more greedy, because ... unbridled Capitalism let them get away with it .
... in the end, even without being the biggest economy , the US fulfills a ... role of an economic junction , that at present the world cannot do without , both due to globalization and other reasons . BUT, if I were to take the purely "economist" POV like you did in your post (without looking at the larger implications) , from an external POV, shoring up the US with further loans & debt may seem like an attempt at avoiding the inevitable ... , unless the produce VS import ratio changes in the US ...
A few points.
Sadly the US has not had its currency backed by gold (and other precious metals) for nearly forty years.
I totally agree with you about our debt, our politicians our spending us and our descendants to the grave, the last six years we have more than doubled our debt and I have argued with the academia here that it will come back to haunt us. We shouldnt solve our issues by borrowing more, and American citizens shouldnt be looked at as ATM machines.
Most of that debt has not been spent on the military or wars (by the way, military spending is one of the few things iutlined in The Constitution that the government is permitted to spend money on) discretionary spending and growth of entitlement spending.
The US hasnt had a true budget in years, they have just take. The previous budget and added "x"% to it, then cut a bit off of that increase and claimed that they cut spending. They need to start the budget from the begining and work to cut out inefficient/ineffective spending. The budgets a joke, and only the politicains are laughimg , but at the taxpayers.
whats worse, its not properly tracking and making sure that the money that is being spent is being effective and efficient at its aimed purpose. The VA and IRS systems issues that were mentioned a few years ago are the tip of the iceberg.
As it is, I wouldnt expect our countries economic power that we had in the 50s, elevated to modern dollar figures to pull us out of a mess without noticable cuts in spending, but every poltician wants to bring his/her peice of the pie for votes, bureaucrats want job security and no one in leadership of either side wants to touch the issue.
As far as the car companies being greedy:
The Unions have been heavy handed in thier greed as well, entry level jobs were avering $70k a year plus insane benefits. The same situations that impacted the Big Three were also behind the fall of British and Australian automaking as well. That money came from the companies as well. Yes, the car companies did a lot of stupid things, but as we have seen with foreign car companies, (big time Japan) they made decisions just as bad for the sake of whatever currency you want to name as well. I saw it firsthand when I worked in the car business.
Actually the Bill of Rights protects the right to property, including accumulating wealth, with no limitation, so yes it gives the right to be wealthy , for those that can become it. Not to mention that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give rights", it outlines limitations placed on the government to limit its power to prevent our Government from treating us as the Crown did.
Really? Capitalism lead to corruption and white collar stealing? Thats why Socialists and Communists have a ruling class that amasses wealth and privilege not afforded to the average person? At least Capitalism allows people with a good idea to turn it wealth. I think I agree with Maggie Thatcher when she said "the problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money.
All governments, can easily be overrun by an oppressor so, capitalist, communist, socialist all have that in common.
As for the right to wealth, I sure don't see it anywhere in the bill of rights.
Maybe you can point it out, where it says you have the right to be filthy stinking rich, while contributing nothing to society if you so deem it.
Seriously? You think it's greedy that a company takes out an insurance policy to pretext itself in the case that employees are unable to continue to produce? You think that it's greedy to be responsible and to cover potential damages that could arise from losing key personnel?
You are damn right, it's called vested in your untimely death and, a reason laws prevent me from taking fire/flood/etc. insurance out on say your house.
It sure seems like you're willing to throw logic out the window in order to jump to judgment on others. Why? Probably because you want the market to be more favorable to your own standing. It doesn't matter that the jobs don't belong to you, that the market isn't yours to play with, and that adults are empowered to make voluntary decisions for themselves: you need to interrupt that and advocate a position that benefits you. And that, my friends, is greed.
See what I did there?
I could care very little about the market, I am simply stating the nature of human greed that applies to said market(s).
It was never about being safe from the Crown, they actually tried to reconcile and stay as subjects of the Crown (albeit some did want to break away) when we were outright rejected, and more pressure put on us, thats when we left. Thats why we put the Bill of Rights in so we wouldnt have our own Govt do what England did to us.
As far as all of the whole "too big to fail" and such, thats not Capitalism. Capitalism would have let companies fail and let other companies buy the devalued businesses and let them fix them, or let them die off and other business rise to fill the vacuum. What you are speaking of is Kronie (sp) Capitalism, where the Govt picks the winners and losers, sadly that is due to the amount of Socialism that has been allowed to sneak into our government over the last 100 years. The "war on poverty" started in the 60s wasnt to end poverty, but to keep preople poor by increasing the safety net in a way that made it beneficial for a person to stay unemployed or to not try to better themselves and work to advance themselves by getting better jobs or starting thier own businesses. I worked low income jobs when I was younger, I knew I had to develop skills and knowledge to move up and get better jobs. Minimum wage jobsare starter jobs to made for people with low/no skills, you move up or move out to a better job or start your own business.
If there is anything, its more to the Federal Governments greed for "moar" power and control over the people, and less observance of checks and balances from each branch of the government and the states that is built into the Constitution because people are affraid of the backlash because they are affraid of losing votes when the Socialist cries out that "they are trying to take away your bemefits", and the Socialist has grown the entitlement system up enough to where now that people who are recieving government entitlements are now a major voting block. The entitlement system has made it so there is little incentive for advancement, thats why a small portion of the people make so much of the weallth. Many Americans have become complacent with the saftey net. Heck, if a person can take advantage of all of the entitlements that an unhandicapped person can get, it equates to $70k a year, thats well above the average income, why work so hard when you can get benefits equsting to more than the average income?
Socialism or, at least democratic socialism, is not responsible for so called chrony capitalism, that stems from people simply allowing it to thrive, whether not knowing how or, what to do about it, to simply being a vital part of it.
A picture may speak a thousand words but, in the case of greed, money speaks far more and, almost always first.
I could care very little about the market, I am simply stating the nature of human greed that applies to said market(s).
Socialism or, at least democratic socialism, is not responsible for so called chrony capitalism, that stems from people simply allowing it to thrive, whether not knowing how or, what to do about it, to simply being a vital part of it.
A picture may speak a thousand words but, in the case of greed, money speaks far more and, almost always first.
By the government ensuring the right to property, it would be counter intuitive for it to put a limitation on how much one can have. Simply said, the government puts no limits on how much wealth one can accumulate, nor, inversely, does it imply a minimum of how much a person is required to have. The only ones that truly seem to care about how much wealth another person has are those who too busy worrying about what the other guy has, and why they dont have it, instead of working towards earning it themselves ( the very definition of greedy to me). The right to accumulate and keep ones own wealth is as natural as anything that a civilization can have.
As far as chrony capitalism goes, it actually flies AGAINST the concept of Capitalism, as every person/business stands or fails on its own, not by the favor of governmet officials.
Let me use this little experiment, as a somewhat horrid example of socialism as an experiment, because at its root.
It shows how little experience, socialism is applied as a whole.
It kind of hits upon, the very nature of human moral fiber and, how very little it is applied.
Until it is forced upon humans, outside of their control and/or, they are willing to apply it.
Humans can either be greedy, middle ground, neutral, and even giving in any circumstance.
But, there is always a catch to this behavior!
Now, let's try another classroom experiment, where the ground rules are as follows.
Let's say, that we imitate grades of an A, as a finite source like money.
I have 20 students but, only have 14 A's I can give each grade period and, those A's are not replenishable, unless some student(s) decides to either pass them on and/or, doesn't achieve one.
Now, let's say our first grade period 5 of the 20 students achieve an A, that leaves only 11 A's left to be achieved.
2nd grade period, I have again 5 students achieve an A, 3 of those 5 are previous A awarded, leaving me with now only 6 A's.
So, at this moment we have 7 students who have achieved an A and, only 6 A's left to be awarded.
3rd grade period comes around and, we have again 5 students achieve an A and, only 1 of the original 5 gaining another A and, 1 of the second 5 also.
We are now left with 1 A, out of a total of 10 students achieving an A so far so, 50% of the class has achieved an A, not bad.
4th grade period rolls around and, 6 students have achieved an A but, we only have 1 A to hand out, who should get it?
And, until those other A's are passed around, we cannot replenish our A's so, what solution can we devise?
Because money, like out A's, are a finite source of achievement and, those who have the most, are free to do with it as they please.
Now, while people will say, I can live with B's and C's, yes that is another example of those who can live with less wealth also and be happy but, what about those who would enjoy an earned A but, cannot get one because there just isn't enough atm?
Now, what if we applied this experiment to ever grade, you know B's, C's, D's even, eventually you would find people being forced with F's at some point, which is kind of like how money passes around when there is no regulation on it and, left to the possible moral fiber of human kindness to let go of some.
Now, this doesn't take in consideration of spending, which we can apply to out experiment also, in some form of equity trading via grades.
Just like how spending, can be equated into how money is passed from person to person.
The problem is though, if money just like our grades, only remain primarily at the top and, trickles downward at an extremely slow rate, than burdened by forced spending.
Eventually, you will find that the trickling effect, is not sufficiently quick enough, to provide very sufficient funds being guaranteed, to those who would earn it.
Companies freezing employee wages for decades, massive employee let go's, Low paying wage companies encouraging employees to enlist for social benefits, etc.
If a lot of these companies, make more than adequate profits, than why is none of it trickling down?
I get some companies, have to make cuts just to remain in business but, who's fault is it than that such a large financial burden, was taken on in the first place?
We aren't in the old days, of stake your own claim and, farm your own food and, raise your own livestock. [Granted farmers still do it and, some regular folk as well]
For the longest time, it has been about resource control and, how much of it humans are either willing to share or, keep for themselves!!!
By the government ensuring the right to property, it would be counter intuitive for it to put a limitation on how much one can have. Simply said, the government puts no limits on how much wealth one can accumulate, nor, inversely, does it imply a minimum of how much a person is required to have. The only ones that truly seem to care about how much wealth another person has are those who too busy worrying about what the other guy has, and why they dont have it, instead of working towards earning it themselves ( the very definition of greedy to me). The right to accumulate and keep ones own wealth is as natural as anything that a civilization can have.
As far as chrony capitalism goes, it actually flies AGAINST the concept of Capitalism, as every person/business stands or fails on its own, not by the favor of governmet officials.
If a lot of this were true, than why is it the government only owns roughly 30% of the countries property? That's not much of a guarantee of, the right to property.
No limits on wealth, seems they have limits in the way of preventing monopolies or, at least they used to seeing how it's happening anyways.
The ones who mostly care about those who are way over bloated with wealth, are those who can never get any themselves, no matter how hard they work for it.
Because, if it isn't there to be had, than it need be made available.
Sadly the US has not had its currency backed by gold (and other precious metals) for nearly forty years.
I totally agree with you about our debt, our politicians our spending us and our descendants to the grave, the last six years we have more than doubled our debt and I have argued with the academia here that it will come back to haunt us. We shouldnt solve our issues by borrowing more, and American citizens shouldnt be looked at as ATM machines.
Most of that debt has not been spent on the military or wars (by the way, military spending is one of the few things iutlined in The Constitution that the government is permitted to spend money on) discretionary spending and growth of entitlement spending.
The US hasnt had a true budget in years, they have just take. The previous budget and added "x"% to it, then cut a bit off of that increase and claimed that they cut spending. They need to start the budget from the begining and work to cut out inefficient/ineffective spending. The budgets a joke, and only the politicains are laughimg , but at the taxpayers.
whats worse, its not properly tracking and making sure that the money that is being spent is being effective and efficient at its aimed purpose. The VA and IRS systems issues that were mentioned a few years ago are the tip of the iceberg.
As it is, I wouldnt expect our countries economic power that we had in the 50s, elevated to modern dollar figures to pull us out of a mess without noticable cuts in spending, but every poltician wants to bring his/her peice of the pie for votes, bureaucrats want job security and no one in leadership of either side wants to touch the issue.
As far as the car companies being greedy:
The Unions have been heavy handed in thier greed as well, entry level jobs were avering $70k a year plus insane benefits. The same situations that impacted the Big Three were also behind the fall of British and Australian automaking as well. That money came from the companies as well. Yes, the car companies did a lot of stupid things, but as we have seen with foreign car companies, (big time Japan) they made decisions just as bad for the sake of whatever currency you want to name as well. I saw it firsthand when I worked in the car business.
This, this and more of this.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
You are damn right, it's called vested in your untimely death and, a reason laws prevent me from taking fire/flood/etc. insurance out on say your house.
Yet if you were renting property from me, it would be perfectly acceptable to carry insurance that helps cover costs of something happened.
Insuring the life of an employee is not an investment their death, it's a hedge to cover the costs associated with that death.
You are beyond reproach when you seek to vilify responsibility and wise business sense.
If a lot of these companies, make more than adequate profits, than why is none of it trickling down?
For the most part, it's being redirected into government coffers, or at the behest of government regulations.
Unfortunately, your logic is self-supporting. From your basis that companies are inherently greedy and TRIBBLE the little guy, you demand regulation. Increased regulation results in an increased cost per employee. The employee never sees it, leaving them feeling screwed. They go on to say that companies are inherently greedy and TRIBBLE the little guy. Not that they understand that the actual cost to employ them is something like double their wage.
Compensation has largely been keeping pace; it's just that due to increased regulation, it goes to anywhere but the employee.
It's also worth noting that the greatest period of economic growth for the middle class, at least here in America, was during the period from the mid-1920s to the early 1970s, not coincidentally when immigration to America was at its lowest.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
If a lot of this were true, than why is it the government only owns roughly 30% of the countries property? That's not much of a guarantee of, the right to property.
No limits on wealth, seems they have limits in the way of preventing monopolies or, at least they used to seeing how it's happening anyways.
The ones who mostly care about those who are way over bloated with wealth, are those who can never get any themselves, no matter how hard they work for it.
Because, if it isn't there to be had, than it need be made available.
You could almost have a minutia of a point, assuming an economy is entierly a zero sum system.
If the economy was zero sum, there would be no growth or contraction. Commodities that are in rare supply can be substituted, even if thier properties or performance arent exactly the same. If technology and labor techniques never change or improve. If there is no in incentive to match risk of effort, materials, and time, there is reduced or no growth, no reason to innovate or improve.
Lets take you lesson and move it to the logical conclusion:
To make things fair, the teacher then take the lump sum values of all of the grades (money) and redistributes them to all students. Everyone gets a C (average wealth). What happens to the students that would have earned A's and B's? Do they maintain their level of effort? No, theres no incentive to. What of the students who got C's? Most of them were under the belief that C's get degrees, and now I have a garaunteed C, they no longer put out the extra effort either. The D's and F's, if they even tried before, they surely arent now, they are doing better than they ever were, why bother?
The teache has now just failed all of the students because they have no incentive to improve, or at least struggle to survive. They will continue to do worse untill there isnt even D's left in the economy. Ever hear of a place called Greece?
Yet if you were renting property from me, it would be perfectly acceptable to carry insurance that helps cover costs of something happened.
Insuring the life of an employee is not an investment their death, it's a hedge to cover the costs associated with that death.
You are beyond reproach when you seek to vilify responsibility and wise business sense.
We aren't talking about renter insurance, we are talking about me vesting in insurance, in the hopes your house burns down, so that I can collect on your loss.
A business, should already know the risk of employing people, they shouldn't be any more allowed to profit off of some ones death, anymore than if the same employee quit, got fired, retired, etc.
For the most part, it's being redirected into government coffers, or at the behest of government regulations.
Unfortunately, your logic is self-supporting. From your basis that companies are inherently greedy and TRIBBLE the little guy, you demand regulation. Increased regulation results in an increased cost per employee. The employee never sees it, leaving them feeling screwed. They go on to say that companies are inherently greedy and TRIBBLE the little guy. Not that they understand that the actual cost to employ them is something like double their wage.
Compensation has largely been keeping pace; it's just that due to increased regulation, it goes to anywhere but the employee.
It's also worth noting that the greatest period of economic growth for the middle class, at least here in America, was during the period from the mid-1920s to the early 1970s, not coincidentally when immigration to America was at its lowest.
MMMM, so those CEO's being paid huge sums of money and/or, investment funds, are by no means seeing bonuses when the company profits?
How, often does the base employees get any bonuses? Maybe they do and, maybe they don't but, always the top will first!
If it wasn't for regulation, there wouldn't be any employee security and, quite possible any benefits as well!
And, in regards to the mid 20's, that was a time, where the top % of wealth people, also paid a top % tax, only to be abolished thru the greedy minds of those who wanted more than needed.
You could almost have a minutia of a point, assuming an economy is entierly a zero sum system.
If the economy was zero sum, there would be no growth or contraction. Commodities that are in rare supply can be substituted, even if thier properties or performance arent exactly the same. If technology and labor techniques never change or improve. If there is no in incentive to match risk of effort, materials, and time, there is reduced or no growth, no reason to innovate or improve.
Lets take you lesson and move it to the logical conclusion:
To make things fair, the teacher then take the lump sum values of all of the grades (money) and redistributes them to all students. Everyone gets a C (average wealth). What happens to the students that would have earned A's and B's? Do they maintain their level of effort? No, theres no incentive to. What of the students who got C's? Most of them were under the belief that C's get degrees, and now I have a garaunteed C, they no longer put out the extra effort either. The D's and F's, if they even tried before, they surely arent now, they are doing better than they ever were, why bother?
The teache has now just failed all of the students because they have no incentive to improve, or at least struggle to survive. They will continue to do worse untill there isnt even D's left in the economy. Ever hear of a place called Greece?
Your flawed assumption, just like the TRIBBLE experiment, is that there would be absolutely NO incentive.
There can still be incentive to do good, it just shouldn't be wealth or grades alone!!!
You also assume, that given time, they will undoubtedly never work to succeed, despite the social scaling.
If given no alternative, humans can and do, work harder under stressful circumstances, for the better of humanity but, not all humans.
There will always be those, who don't get the picture, as to why!!!
There can still be incentive to do good, it just shouldn't be wealth or grades alone!!!
Human nature has not changed.
Besides, the sense of community you're describing seems very much similar to nationalism and religion. I thought you Euros were supposed to be smarter than falling for that trap again. I mean, it's only been what, not even 70 years since the last time it got you into serious trouble.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
He did say money. Money is artificially finite. The resources money is used to purchase are actually finite.
Human nature has not changed.
Besides, the sense of community you're describing seems very much similar to nationalism and religion. I thought you Euros were supposed to be smarter than falling for that trap again. I mean, it's only been what, not even 70 years since the last time it got you into serious trouble.
Euros?
I live in the U.S. and, deplore the way the world handles wealth for the few!!!
In that regard, I must be confusing you with someone else who was part of the discussion. I had thought I saw you make a statement to the effect of "your country" in reference to America.
deplore the way the world handles wealth for the few!!!
It's still better than leaving it to the bureaucrats.
There's a reason the USSR fell, and China survived only by adopting some form of soft-capitalism.
Bureaucracy is a terribly inefficient means of distributing resources.
And, over time, terribly unfair, as well.
You think the 1% have too much control now? Go ahead, increase regulation; all you'll do is leave them as the only ones capable of affording to navigate the increasingly complex regulatory state.
Just look at US election laws; sure, third party candidates tend not to run because it only benefits the party least similar to them. But, even beyond that, it's so infuriatingly complicated to get listed on a ballot that it's practically impossible to do without the support of one of the two major political parties. More regulation has lead to decreased competition, decreased choice, and a very real barrier preventing folks outside the 1% and without connections to the 1% from achieving office. Meanwhile, talk of reforming the process only seems tailored around solidifying the status quo. More regulations, to make it even more difficult for the non-connected to even have a voice, let alone actually run.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
When you sum it all up, the real world market does not run free. While the logic behind capitalism is about existentialism, the reality is that its controlled by: government regulations, interest rate adjustments, policy making (social, defense, etc...), taxes, corporate speculation, etc...
When it comes to the in-game ec-exchange, not the dilithium exchange, Cryptic gives sellers way too much freedom. Cryptic should be capping prices and taxing sellers.
If Cryptic is willing to raise prices on transwarping, they should have no problem with regulating the ec-exchange. BioWare regulates their system; therefore, Cryptic should regulate their system.
Players have to choose between 'being selfish' or 'sharing the wealth'. Outside of the items that are bought out of the c-store, the game's core items should be 'affordability' sold on the ec-exchange.
"Star Trek: Online" is a damn game.
I am trying to escape reality.
Why do I want to play a game where players reflect reality?
When you sum it all up, the real world market does not run free. While the logic behind capitalism is about existentialism, the reality is that its controlled by: government regulations, interest rate adjustments, policy making (social, defense, etc...), corporate speculation, etc...
When it comes to the in-game ec-exchange, not the dilithium exchange, Cryptic gives sellers way too much freedom. Cryptic should be capping prices and taxing sellers.
If Cryptic is willing to raise prices on transwarping, they should have no problem with regulating the ec-exchange. BioWare regulates their system; therefore, Cryptic should regulate their system.
Players have to choose between being 'being selfish' or 'sharing the wealth'.
I disagree.
Players have to choose between rewarding the effort of crafting and the cost of opening lock boxes, or having taxes and price caps added and creating an empty exchange.
Taxes alone will just increase prices to cover the expense. If cryptic adds taxes they will not re-distribute the taxes to "the poor" as free goodies.
Price caps will remove the rewards for spending time and money, meaning many people will not craft and not put lock box and lobi ships on the exchange.
Right now you can buy a lobi ship for roughly 1/4 the cost of lock boxes for the lobi. You can buy a lock box ship for 1/5 the cost of opening lock boxes.
In that regard, I must be confusing you with someone else who was part of the discussion. I had thought I saw you make a statement to the effect of "your country" in reference to America.
It's still better than leaving it to the bureaucrats.
There's a reason the USSR fell, and China survived only by adopting some form of soft-capitalism.
Bureaucracy is a terribly inefficient means of distributing resources.
And, over time, terribly unfair, as well.
You think the 1% have too much control now? Go ahead, increase regulation; all you'll do is leave them as the only ones capable of affording to navigate the increasingly complex regulatory state.
Just look at US election laws; sure, third party candidates tend not to run because it only benefits the party least similar to them. But, even beyond that, it's so infuriatingly complicated to get listed on a ballot that it's practically impossible to do without the support of one of the two major political parties. More regulation has lead to decreased competition, decreased choice, and a very real barrier preventing folks outside the 1% and without connections to the 1% from achieving office. Meanwhile, talk of reforming the process only seems tailored around solidifying the status quo. More regulations, to make it even more difficult for the non-connected to even have a voice, let alone actually run.
Give those the power to do right and, they may do right but, give those the power to do wrong and, they will most certainly do wrong!
Players have to choose between rewarding the effort of crafting and the cost of opening lock boxes, or having taxes and price caps added and creating an empty exchange.
Taxes alone will just increase prices to cover the expense. If cryptic adds taxes they will not re-distribute the taxes to "the poor" as free goodies.
Price caps will remove the rewards for spending time and money, meaning many people will not craft and not put lock box and lobi ships on the exchange.
Right now you can buy a lobi ship for roughly 1/4 the cost of lock boxes for the lobi. You can buy a lock box ship for 1/5 the cost of opening lock boxes.
It's preposterous. Misses the entire point of why countries, companies, and people buy US debt. Buying US debt is betting your money that the US will remain stable and prosperous. If it remains stable and prosperous, you win, you make a profit. If it doesn't, you lose. But you don't just lose the money you spent on debt, you also lose in a much broader sense, because events which would cause the US to stop being stable and prosperous are events that would cause the whole world to stop being stable and prosperous.
Actually what is preposterous is expecting non stop investment on one hand and digging a bigger and bigger debt hole that encompasses not only your generation but your sons and grandsons as well .
What you create there is essentially an artificial country, one that defacto cannot pull it's own weight .
Now if another country does this , say Greece , it's threatened with cutting off aid and getting booted from the EU .
And despite my empathy for Greece, that is what a semi-normal reaction should be to a faltering economy .
Russia went through far worse in the 90's .
The reason (or at least one reason) that many Americans can't concive going through a similar process is because they sense that "wealth" is all around them ... , I mean just look at the latest iPhone and s#it .
That sensation is by large an illusion however, and the actual reality looks something more like this .
For example, in exchange for "calling in debts," China would have to close all the factories that export things.
I hope you won't be offended by this, but that is a very US centric POV . Considering how China treats it's neighborhood , and the US interest in that region ... , well let's just say that it would do you good to educate yourself on what type of businesses partner you have .
Bort once said that Cryptic could loose the income from a whole country and not be effected . Depending on their slowly evolving regional aspirations, there may come a time when China might contemplate the same about the US .
... as of now you may hold each other by the sack, but that limits US options far more than it does China , and unless you turn away from the debt-candy and go on a diet, you may find that your ... sponsors may even refuse to fund your next military adventure (wherever that may be) ...
Comments
That won't work. Hillary is already on pace to take in something like $1B in bribes, plus the hundreds of millions they already received in bribes from foreign interests in return for faovrable rulings from the State Department....
Actually the Bill of Rights protects the right to property, including accumulating wealth, with no limitation, so yes it gives the right to be wealthy , for those that can become it. Not to mention that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give rights", it outlines limitations placed on the government to limit its power to prevent our Government from treating us as the Crown did.
Really? Capitalism lead to corruption and white collar stealing? Thats why Socialists and Communists have a ruling class that amasses wealth and privilege not afforded to the average person? At least Capitalism allows people with a good idea to turn it wealth. I think I agree with Maggie Thatcher when she said "the problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money.
Seriously? You think it's greedy that a company takes out an insurance policy to pretext itself in the case that employees are unable to continue to produce? You think that it's greedy to be responsible and to cover potential damages that could arise from losing key personnel?
It sure seems like you're willing to throw logic out the window in order to jump to judgment on others. Why? Probably because you want the market to be more favorable to your own standing. It doesn't matter that the jobs don't belong to you, that the market isn't yours to play with, and that adults are empowered to make voluntary decisions for themselves: you need to interrupt that and advocate a position that benefits you. And that, my friends, is greed.
See what I did there?
Forcing this on this economy will kill it. Force items into Gold Spammer sights. And you wont be able to find anything at all. It will remove any market at all for these things using legit means. I wouldn't sell lock box ships or DOFFS if they used the OPs system. Or crafted weapons that take a ton of time to craft the right ones that will sell. It would be a waste.
You would see a lot more people selling items in General and Zone chat and avoiding the exchange all together too.
Its like you are entitled to receive everything at a fair price and you expect to find it at that fair price without actually going out and acquiring it yourself by crafting and luck.
@Desdecardo since 2008.
Ahh, so you're " safe from the crown" , good to know .
Now how about modern day slavery (?) , be that the truly generous scraps from the table , in the forms of wages played @ Walmart & MikeyD type employment , or the enjoyment of products that are created in countries outside the US that employ deplorable working conditions .
How about them crazy numbers (that change from person to person , depending on who you ask) , about something like less then 5% of the population owning over 60% of the wealth in the US (some put it at less then 2% owning over 70%) , but whatever .
Point is that there is no stopping mechanism to greed and to moar -- which in turn places your whole economy at the whim of a select few and causes your "too big to fail" country to dance ever more precariously on a tip of a blade , both internally and in the global economic "war" , as the existing and emerging powers struggle over what little is left on an over populated planet .
... meanwhile , while the average American Joe feels that something's wrong , he still can't admit to himself how wrong things (runaway capitalism included) are, as to oppose capitalism would in his eyes be somehow un-American, and if he's anything , Joe is a patriot ...
It was never about being safe from the Crown, they actually tried to reconcile and stay as subjects of the Crown (albeit some did want to break away) when we were outright rejected, and more pressure put on us, thats when we left. Thats why we put the Bill of Rights in so we wouldnt have our own Govt do what England did to us.
As far as all of the whole "too big to fail" and such, thats not Capitalism. Capitalism would have let companies fail and let other companies buy the devalued businesses and let them fix them, or let them die off and other business rise to fill the vacuum. What you are speaking of is Kronie (sp) Capitalism, where the Govt picks the winners and losers, sadly that is due to the amount of Socialism that has been allowed to sneak into our government over the last 100 years. The "war on poverty" started in the 60s wasnt to end poverty, but to keep preople poor by increasing the safety net in a way that made it beneficial for a person to stay unemployed or to not try to better themselves and work to advance themselves by getting better jobs or starting thier own businesses. I worked low income jobs when I was younger, I knew I had to develop skills and knowledge to move up and get better jobs. Minimum wage jobsare starter jobs to made for people with low/no skills, you move up or move out to a better job or start your own business.
If there is anything, its more to the Federal Governments greed for "moar" power and control over the people, and less observance of checks and balances from each branch of the government and the states that is built into the Constitution because people are affraid of the backlash because they are affraid of losing votes when the Socialist cries out that "they are trying to take away your bemefits", and the Socialist has grown the entitlement system up enough to where now that people who are recieving government entitlements are now a major voting block. The entitlement system has made it so there is little incentive for advancement, thats why a small portion of the people make so much of the weallth. Many Americans have become complacent with the saftey net. Heck, if a person can take advantage of all of the entitlements that an unhandicapped person can get, it equates to $70k a year, thats well above the average income, why work so hard when you can get benefits equsting to more than the average income?
Before I answer , I just wanted you to know that I did read your whole post, and while I may not agree with it, I appreciate your POV .
That being said, I was not talking about businesses when I said " too big to fail" , but of America as a whole .
See, in an alternative 2008 , with major businesses failing, the coffers mostly empty from 2 parallel wars, plus loans & debt up the wazoo, and not enough gold to print the amounts of cash you needed to jump start your economy ... -- well, if at that point your major trading and loaning partners would have turned their backs at you (or worse, called in your loans) , your whole country could have suffered a domino like economic collapse .
Yeah , ppl don't like to imagine that it could have been that bad .
And while that may not have been the exact scenario , relying on your own devices (exporting arms & tech development) , might not have been enough to pull you through, as a country's economic power is mostly counted in products and exports, and your housing (product) and export (car) industry's were crumbling .
And that's the "too big to fail" that I was talking about ... -- as the economic fall out of a bankrupt US would have taken the world economy with it .
And even as you juggled the numbers and the loans and whatever else that was done with your partners (EU & China) behind closed doors, the slowing of the US economy had it's shockwave's felt across the globe .
That last half sentence actually means that many ppl across the world over have suffered or had their quality of life lowered because some shmuck's in the US banking / housing / car industry couldn't stop being greedy and had to be just a bit more greedy, because ... unbridled Capitalism let them get away with it .
... in the end, even without being the biggest economy , the US fulfills a ... role of an economic junction , that at present the world cannot do without , both due to globalization and other reasons . BUT, if I were to take the purely "economist" POV like you did in your post (without looking at the larger implications) , from an external POV, shoring up the US with further loans & debt may seem like an attempt at avoiding the inevitable ... , unless the produce VS import ratio changes in the US ...
A few points.
Sadly the US has not had its currency backed by gold (and other precious metals) for nearly forty years.
I totally agree with you about our debt, our politicians our spending us and our descendants to the grave, the last six years we have more than doubled our debt and I have argued with the academia here that it will come back to haunt us. We shouldnt solve our issues by borrowing more, and American citizens shouldnt be looked at as ATM machines.
Most of that debt has not been spent on the military or wars (by the way, military spending is one of the few things iutlined in The Constitution that the government is permitted to spend money on) discretionary spending and growth of entitlement spending.
The US hasnt had a true budget in years, they have just take. The previous budget and added "x"% to it, then cut a bit off of that increase and claimed that they cut spending. They need to start the budget from the begining and work to cut out inefficient/ineffective spending. The budgets a joke, and only the politicains are laughimg , but at the taxpayers.
whats worse, its not properly tracking and making sure that the money that is being spent is being effective and efficient at its aimed purpose. The VA and IRS systems issues that were mentioned a few years ago are the tip of the iceberg.
As it is, I wouldnt expect our countries economic power that we had in the 50s, elevated to modern dollar figures to pull us out of a mess without noticable cuts in spending, but every poltician wants to bring his/her peice of the pie for votes, bureaucrats want job security and no one in leadership of either side wants to touch the issue.
As far as the car companies being greedy:
The Unions have been heavy handed in thier greed as well, entry level jobs were avering $70k a year plus insane benefits. The same situations that impacted the Big Three were also behind the fall of British and Australian automaking as well. That money came from the companies as well. Yes, the car companies did a lot of stupid things, but as we have seen with foreign car companies, (big time Japan) they made decisions just as bad for the sake of whatever currency you want to name as well. I saw it firsthand when I worked in the car business.
All governments, can easily be overrun by an oppressor so, capitalist, communist, socialist all have that in common.
As for the right to wealth, I sure don't see it anywhere in the bill of rights.
Maybe you can point it out, where it says you have the right to be filthy stinking rich, while contributing nothing to society if you so deem it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
I could care very little about the market, I am simply stating the nature of human greed that applies to said market(s).
Socialism or, at least democratic socialism, is not responsible for so called chrony capitalism, that stems from people simply allowing it to thrive, whether not knowing how or, what to do about it, to simply being a vital part of it.
A picture may speak a thousand words but, in the case of greed, money speaks far more and, almost always first.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
By the government ensuring the right to property, it would be counter intuitive for it to put a limitation on how much one can have. Simply said, the government puts no limits on how much wealth one can accumulate, nor, inversely, does it imply a minimum of how much a person is required to have. The only ones that truly seem to care about how much wealth another person has are those who too busy worrying about what the other guy has, and why they dont have it, instead of working towards earning it themselves ( the very definition of greedy to me). The right to accumulate and keep ones own wealth is as natural as anything that a civilization can have.
As far as chrony capitalism goes, it actually flies AGAINST the concept of Capitalism, as every person/business stands or fails on its own, not by the favor of governmet officials.
Let me use this little experiment, as a somewhat horrid example of socialism as an experiment, because at its root.
It shows how little experience, socialism is applied as a whole.
It kind of hits upon, the very nature of human moral fiber and, how very little it is applied.
Until it is forced upon humans, outside of their control and/or, they are willing to apply it.
Humans can either be greedy, middle ground, neutral, and even giving in any circumstance.
But, there is always a catch to this behavior!
Now, let's try another classroom experiment, where the ground rules are as follows.
Let's say, that we imitate grades of an A, as a finite source like money.
I have 20 students but, only have 14 A's I can give each grade period and, those A's are not replenishable, unless some student(s) decides to either pass them on and/or, doesn't achieve one.
Now, let's say our first grade period 5 of the 20 students achieve an A, that leaves only 11 A's left to be achieved.
2nd grade period, I have again 5 students achieve an A, 3 of those 5 are previous A awarded, leaving me with now only 6 A's.
So, at this moment we have 7 students who have achieved an A and, only 6 A's left to be awarded.
3rd grade period comes around and, we have again 5 students achieve an A and, only 1 of the original 5 gaining another A and, 1 of the second 5 also.
We are now left with 1 A, out of a total of 10 students achieving an A so far so, 50% of the class has achieved an A, not bad.
4th grade period rolls around and, 6 students have achieved an A but, we only have 1 A to hand out, who should get it?
And, until those other A's are passed around, we cannot replenish our A's so, what solution can we devise?
Because money, like out A's, are a finite source of achievement and, those who have the most, are free to do with it as they please.
Now, while people will say, I can live with B's and C's, yes that is another example of those who can live with less wealth also and be happy but, what about those who would enjoy an earned A but, cannot get one because there just isn't enough atm?
Now, what if we applied this experiment to ever grade, you know B's, C's, D's even, eventually you would find people being forced with F's at some point, which is kind of like how money passes around when there is no regulation on it and, left to the possible moral fiber of human kindness to let go of some.
Now, this doesn't take in consideration of spending, which we can apply to out experiment also, in some form of equity trading via grades.
Just like how spending, can be equated into how money is passed from person to person.
The problem is though, if money just like our grades, only remain primarily at the top and, trickles downward at an extremely slow rate, than burdened by forced spending.
Eventually, you will find that the trickling effect, is not sufficiently quick enough, to provide very sufficient funds being guaranteed, to those who would earn it.
Companies freezing employee wages for decades, massive employee let go's, Low paying wage companies encouraging employees to enlist for social benefits, etc.
If a lot of these companies, make more than adequate profits, than why is none of it trickling down?
I get some companies, have to make cuts just to remain in business but, who's fault is it than that such a large financial burden, was taken on in the first place?
We aren't in the old days, of stake your own claim and, farm your own food and, raise your own livestock. [Granted farmers still do it and, some regular folk as well]
For the longest time, it has been about resource control and, how much of it humans are either willing to share or, keep for themselves!!!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
If a lot of this were true, than why is it the government only owns roughly 30% of the countries property? That's not much of a guarantee of, the right to property.
No limits on wealth, seems they have limits in the way of preventing monopolies or, at least they used to seeing how it's happening anyways.
The ones who mostly care about those who are way over bloated with wealth, are those who can never get any themselves, no matter how hard they work for it.
Because, if it isn't there to be had, than it need be made available.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Yet if you were renting property from me, it would be perfectly acceptable to carry insurance that helps cover costs of something happened.
Insuring the life of an employee is not an investment
You are beyond reproach when you seek to vilify responsibility and wise business sense.
Unfortunately, your logic is self-supporting. From your basis that companies are inherently greedy and TRIBBLE the little guy, you demand regulation. Increased regulation results in an increased cost per employee. The employee never sees it, leaving them feeling screwed. They go on to say that companies are inherently greedy and TRIBBLE the little guy. Not that they understand that the actual cost to employ them is something like double their wage.
Compensation has largely been keeping pace; it's just that due to increased regulation, it goes to anywhere but the employee.
It's also worth noting that the greatest period of economic growth for the middle class, at least here in America, was during the period from the mid-1920s to the early 1970s, not coincidentally when immigration to America was at its lowest.
Fail. Wealth is not finite.
You could almost have a minutia of a point, assuming an economy is entierly a zero sum system.
If the economy was zero sum, there would be no growth or contraction. Commodities that are in rare supply can be substituted, even if thier properties or performance arent exactly the same. If technology and labor techniques never change or improve. If there is no in incentive to match risk of effort, materials, and time, there is reduced or no growth, no reason to innovate or improve.
Lets take you lesson and move it to the logical conclusion:
To make things fair, the teacher then take the lump sum values of all of the grades (money) and redistributes them to all students. Everyone gets a C (average wealth). What happens to the students that would have earned A's and B's? Do they maintain their level of effort? No, theres no incentive to. What of the students who got C's? Most of them were under the belief that C's get degrees, and now I have a garaunteed C, they no longer put out the extra effort either. The D's and F's, if they even tried before, they surely arent now, they are doing better than they ever were, why bother?
The teache has now just failed all of the students because they have no incentive to improve, or at least struggle to survive. They will continue to do worse untill there isnt even D's left in the economy. Ever hear of a place called Greece?
Depends on your definition of wealth!
If money/resources are your definition, than they are most certainly finite!
We aren't talking about renter insurance, we are talking about me vesting in insurance, in the hopes your house burns down, so that I can collect on your loss.
A business, should already know the risk of employing people, they shouldn't be any more allowed to profit off of some ones death, anymore than if the same employee quit, got fired, retired, etc.
MMMM, so those CEO's being paid huge sums of money and/or, investment funds, are by no means seeing bonuses when the company profits?
How, often does the base employees get any bonuses? Maybe they do and, maybe they don't but, always the top will first!
If it wasn't for regulation, there wouldn't be any employee security and, quite possible any benefits as well!
And, in regards to the mid 20's, that was a time, where the top % of wealth people, also paid a top % tax, only to be abolished thru the greedy minds of those who wanted more than needed.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Your flawed assumption, just like the TRIBBLE experiment, is that there would be absolutely NO incentive.
There can still be incentive to do good, it just shouldn't be wealth or grades alone!!!
You also assume, that given time, they will undoubtedly never work to succeed, despite the social scaling.
If given no alternative, humans can and do, work harder under stressful circumstances, for the better of humanity but, not all humans.
There will always be those, who don't get the picture, as to why!!!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
At its core, capitalism is little more than the distribution of finite resources under the guidance of enlightened self interest.
Human nature has not changed.
Besides, the sense of community you're describing seems very much similar to nationalism and religion. I thought you Euros were supposed to be smarter than falling for that trap again. I mean, it's only been what, not even 70 years since the last time it got you into serious trouble.
Euros?
I live in the U.S. and, deplore the way the world handles wealth for the few!!!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
It's still better than leaving it to the bureaucrats.
There's a reason the USSR fell, and China survived only by adopting some form of soft-capitalism.
Bureaucracy is a terribly inefficient means of distributing resources.
And, over time, terribly unfair, as well.
You think the 1% have too much control now? Go ahead, increase regulation; all you'll do is leave them as the only ones capable of affording to navigate the increasingly complex regulatory state.
Just look at US election laws; sure, third party candidates tend not to run because it only benefits the party least similar to them. But, even beyond that, it's so infuriatingly complicated to get listed on a ballot that it's practically impossible to do without the support of one of the two major political parties. More regulation has lead to decreased competition, decreased choice, and a very real barrier preventing folks outside the 1% and without connections to the 1% from achieving office. Meanwhile, talk of reforming the process only seems tailored around solidifying the status quo. More regulations, to make it even more difficult for the non-connected to even have a voice, let alone actually run.
When it comes to the in-game ec-exchange, not the dilithium exchange, Cryptic gives sellers way too much freedom. Cryptic should be capping prices and taxing sellers.
If Cryptic is willing to raise prices on transwarping, they should have no problem with regulating the ec-exchange. BioWare regulates their system; therefore, Cryptic should regulate their system.
Players have to choose between 'being selfish' or 'sharing the wealth'. Outside of the items that are bought out of the c-store, the game's core items should be 'affordability' sold on the ec-exchange.
"Star Trek: Online" is a damn game.
I am trying to escape reality.
Why do I want to play a game where players reflect reality?
Its dumb.
I disagree.
Players have to choose between rewarding the effort of crafting and the cost of opening lock boxes, or having taxes and price caps added and creating an empty exchange.
Taxes alone will just increase prices to cover the expense. If cryptic adds taxes they will not re-distribute the taxes to "the poor" as free goodies.
Price caps will remove the rewards for spending time and money, meaning many people will not craft and not put lock box and lobi ships on the exchange.
Right now you can buy a lobi ship for roughly 1/4 the cost of lock boxes for the lobi. You can buy a lock box ship for 1/5 the cost of opening lock boxes.
The exchange works well as it is now.
Give those the power to do right and, they may do right but, give those the power to do wrong and, they will most certainly do wrong!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
You cannot have the prisoners run the prison.
I am not a number! I am a free man!
Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
That'll do Buckaroo, that'll do.
Actually what is preposterous is expecting non stop investment on one hand and digging a bigger and bigger debt hole that encompasses not only your generation but your sons and grandsons as well .
What you create there is essentially an artificial country, one that defacto cannot pull it's own weight .
Now if another country does this , say Greece , it's threatened with cutting off aid and getting booted from the EU .
And despite my empathy for Greece, that is what a semi-normal reaction should be to a faltering economy .
Russia went through far worse in the 90's .
The reason (or at least one reason) that many Americans can't concive going through a similar process is because they sense that "wealth" is all around them ... , I mean just look at the latest iPhone and s#it .
That sensation is by large an illusion however, and the actual reality looks something more like this .
I hope you won't be offended by this, but that is a very US centric POV .
Considering how China treats it's neighborhood , and the US interest in that region ... , well let's just say that it would do you good to educate yourself on what type of businesses partner you have .
Bort once said that Cryptic could loose the income from a whole country and not be effected . Depending on their slowly evolving regional aspirations, there may come a time when China might contemplate the same about the US .
... as of now you may hold each other by the sack, but that limits US options far more than it does China , and unless you turn away from the debt-candy and go on a diet, you may find that your ... sponsors may even refuse to fund your next military adventure (wherever that may be) ...