Symphony D.

I still haven't gotten an SA membership, though I had been thinking on it about a month ago.

And you just want it to be more realistic? Like with better players, or more like "Yea I can see this happening in real life under these circumstances" ?

And who are they even supposed to purchase it from? The government? Why should I have to pay money to the government to take over my dad's business or have it die? And then for the definition of family business. If I have my mechanic's garage, does that mean I should only hire family members for my business instead of hiring someone more qualified? Doesn't that create further nepotism? But I have to, because under your system, if I don't hire my kids, then all of the equipment needed to run a garage reverts to the state?

Man, that's some bull.

I have to completely and 100% disagree with you. Why should you have to purchase the family business to continue it on? That makes absolutely no sense. What happens too when members of the family generally go into that business, and therefore have no income outside of that family business? Your idea makes sense for the big giants of Walmart, where there are plenty of stockholders, but what about the grocery store of Small Town, Iowa? Either the guy dies and his heir purchases it, losing him money, or the guy can't pay for it and the town loses a store and jobs until someone from out of town makes a new one and causes money to leave the community?

Goon AARs?

Sorry about the whole Modern Day fiasco >_< I think that running neses are generally both difficult, and for the most part, not fun, to mod. I personally think eliminating most stats and adding a player limit would go a long way to salvaging that.

Alright that's fair enough. You can tax the gifts instead of putting them on open market, and I could definitely see that being a reasonable enough solution. What about privately held companies like Hobby Lobby? And the small businesses that populate throughout America?

I'm actually surprised that you didn't rip Skyrim to death with criticism As for Paradox stuff, any games in particular you enjoy reading AAR's for? I'm generally a big fan of CK2 and HOI 2.

I remember you saying you are a simulationist for Nesing, nothing here looks good for you here I presume? Have you ever considered running your own?

No, it doesn't, but neither does one of their boxstackers benefiting from the guys who made the super low priced supply chain that the first Walton innovated. So yea, I'd say sure Walton's kids yea, but then it becomes more complicated. They of course want to give it to their kids, which seems less ok, but really who SHOULD own it? They have the best claim to it.

I'm open to ideas though. Who should own Wal-Mart?

On a side note, I do believe there is a difference between a multi national, publicly traded company such as Walmart, versus a family owned car dealer/supermarket/restaurant whatever. It's a gray area that makes the matter complicated.

Because it's the wishes of the former owner? It's the father's capital, expertise, and hardwork that went into the business. He wants his kid to take it over when they die? I mean yea there are some businesses for professionals (plumbers, carpenters, smiths, ect.) that are family businesses that stay in the family (Mostly because it's very easy to go independent in those trades), but what if it's like a grocery store or a car dealership? You hire salesmen or bag boys, or whatever, but why shouldn't the parent be allowed to make it so that when he or she dies, their kid gets to inherit the business?

I take it you're not a fan of Paradox?

To an extent yea sure, but what about all of those family businesses? Like if you have a grocery store or car dealership, a plumber business or a construction business, and your kid has been working at it with you, why can't the kid inherit the family business? Who else should receive the rights to the business? Should the business be shut down, and we have a bunch of jobs lost?

What about homes? If the family built the home themselves, or if they moved in with their parents to take care of them, or whatever, who gets the home if it's already bought and paid for?

And hey, I don't think you're too uninteresting, I enjoy talking to you What games have you been playing? I'm trying to find a Cold War era strategy game at the moment, any suggestions?

Also, that's a shame about #nes, I've missed chatting with you. Do you do steam chats at all? Other than WWW movie reviews, how have you been?

And I'm not saying either Bill Gates or anyone like him was simply "hard working". He had alot of luck and right place, right time. If he was born in the Roman Empire, he'd probably not be so lucky, but hey, like you said, stuff happens. I DO legitimately believe though that hard work and intelligence will be rewarded. How much so, and how dependent on other factors are up for debate.

And let's be real here too, different intelligence is valued more than others. Right now, intelligent programmers are making bank, while history geniuses are scrambling for the 4 available history professor jobs available at 50K a year. You have to have applicable knowledge, and if you're born in an era where your knowledge isn't very profitable, then that's unfortunate. Is American capitalism broken? Sure, what system isn't. But imo, I think it's significantly less broken than most systems out there.

Like for example, authoritarian capitalism

Not QUITE the point I was going for but in response, I would say how did the uncle get the job? Through nepotism? Presumably he did work hard. It's not like your friend is on the executive board from the connection, he's just on IT. Not to knock on him at all, but it's not as bad as some companies. I think it was Rolling Stone which had it's creator give all online content control to his 22 year old son?

But in the end, while nepotism is not ideal, it can help motivate people to succeed. Now I firmly believe that people should try to get places on their own merit, and I would hate to have my boss or political ruler be my boss/political ruler just because of who they're married to/who's kid they are. But at the same time, I want to have kids, and even if they're not the most talented, I want to give them the best chances at success, be it inheritance, college and trust fund, or whatever else I can.

I find your statement at Putin funny because I had just read an article talking about how Russia is an "authoritarian capitalist state", and how Africa, with Chinese influence, is turning to authoritarian capitalism. I wonder if the reason for the fall of Communism wasn't about wanting free speech, but more about wanting blue jeans and iPads.

Anyhow, for the most part I agree with you, but I still feel there needs to be a system where someone who works smarter and has more talents has a way of being rewarded above others in meaningful and substantial ways. I do feel the American dream is possible still, but at the same time I feel it's less about making a middle class, and more of a mad jump at the upper class. More people are richer, and the rich are getting richer, but if you don't fall into the wealthy, you're probably not doing too hot. Ahh to be a straight white American male in the 1950's....

Also, have you been on hiatus from #nes or something? Never see you on anymore.

I do think that on the whole there is a horrific lack of representation for those who GENUINELY serve the interests of the youth (sub 30). I want there to be a way to reward people who do well, but laissez faire (my old go to solution) , feudalism, or even unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. But at the same time, I am worried about the long term effects of socialist measures. I LIKE that there is a high ceiling for Americans to prosper from, I really do. The problem is, I'm just worried the ground levels are looking more and more like a dark cellar or basement than they used to

Right, and I mean, ultimately all things said and done, I think that the idea at a most basic level of all things should be "Serve the common good, help as many people as possible". The problem comes in what happens when it's short term loss but long term gain or vice versa? How large of a minority group does it take to harm before we decline an action? Thousands? Millions? Do we do something that benefits 5 billion if it hurts one billion?

Isn't the entire thing though that we DON'T know what is the best way to live? And who are we optimizing it for? The rich? The poor? What's best for society as a whole even if certain groups are harmed?

I mean, I'm coming more to terms with the fact that people do NOT act in their rational self interests. It's honestly making me rethink alot of my viewpoints, but I don't really know where to go from there :/

It's kind of why the "**** the government" sentiment is so strong in my opinion

Well doesn't it make sense for people to preserve their rights? I mean, I feel there is, in the United States especially, also this anti-intellectualism that's going around. Like, if you don't go through what they went through (or at least appear to have done so) then you shouldn't be telling them what to do.

Yeah, usually people aren't super in favor of giving up rights...

Also do you really thing America is declining, or rather, other countries are catching up?

Like how technocratic? How much democracy would you want to preserve?