Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[raxo2222]

He would need to change the correct 1 to 0 in the Civ...INI file.

Vanilla INI options doesn't affect saved games - what if you are running two games with different settings?
It only affects settings before starting generated map (NOT scenarios - setting choice is preset in map file).

Scenario settings are saved as text string like this:

   Option=GAMEOPTION_MOUNTAINS
   Option=GAMEOPTION_SAD
   Option=GAMEOPTION_ADVANCED_DIPLOMACY
   Option=GAMEOPTION_UNLIMITED_WONDERS
   Option=GAMEOPTION_BARBARIAN_GENERALS
   Option=GAMEOPTION_ASSIMILATION
   Option=GAMEOPTION_GREAT_COMMANDERS
   Option=GAMEOPTION_ADVANCED_ECONOMY
   Option=GAMEOPTION_REALISTIC_CULTURE_SPREAD
   Option=GAMEOPTION_LARGER_CITIES
   Option=GAMEOPTION_REALISTIC_CORPORATIONS
   Option=GAMEOPTION_UNITED_NATIONS
   Option=GAMEOPTION_ADVANCED_ESPIONAGE
   Option=GAMEOPTION_LEADERHEAD_LEVELUPS
   Option=GAMEOPTION_NO_NUKES

Saves keep string of 0's and 1's in certain order independently from INI settings order.

 

[Toffer90]

Vanilla INI options doesn't affect saved games - what if you are running two games with different settings?
It only affects settings before starting generated map (NOT scenarios - setting choice is preset in map file).

The 0 and 1 string found in the ini file only represents the options chosen the last time a new game was created.
It is only used by the game to automatically select those options as your default options the next time you enter the custom game creation screen.
It kinda overrides the default values set in the gameoption.xml file.
The xml default values are only used when the string in the ini file does not correspond with the options available.

 

[raxo2222]

@strategyonly

To change game options during game go to world builder, select "game data" and then press "game options"

 

[strategyonly]

@strategyonly

To change game options during game go to world builder, select "game data" and then press "game options"

i knew that, but thx .. . .

 

[Thunderbrd]

How quickly can the high-ranking jobs diversify? Even now it's almost unbelievable how narrow the field of a scientist is. And for the lower-ranking service jobs more diversification is also possible, e.g. tour guides on an island like Mallorca who show certain tourists nice places other than the beach. And with the number of high-ranking jobs rising, so does the demand for many services.

To answer your question, I don't think it can diversify fast enough for the desperate to take advantage of it. Science is held back by being primarily private driven and is considered a risk to take for finding a way to profit on new discoveries and knowledge, thus the focus is largely on new ways to tempt folks out of their wealth rather than real progress. Non-profits do fine there but wealth is not distributed enough and is so hard to achieve that even if you want to support certain research goals it's hard to be tempted to donate to them. In a less stressful society this might change a lot and it could open up a lot more options there very quickly. Education is not enough - if it was, we wouldn't have so many well educated masters degree level scientists working in industries nowhere near what they went to school and got a degree for. There IS a LOT of work that could be done there, true, but the system has to change to enable it to blossom. Still, not all have the ... proclivities nor passion nor capacity nor talent. A lot of times efforts to educate are like efforts to shove a cube through a circular hole that isn't quite sized for that cube.

I agree that service jobs increase as the system becomes healthier overall. The health starts with the assurance that you have enough - now go figure out what you really want to do to contribute without feeling like the only reason to do it is to scrape to survive.

There is also electronic shipment e.g. for e-books. If 3D printing ever gets commonplace, you could electronically ship almost any kind of good.

Again, if the globe started adopting this kind of system because it works wherever it's adopted, then you'd see a lot of health all over and we'd be one massively powerful cooperative species rather than the mess of violent competitors we feel we must be because we believe there's not enough to go around when there should be MORE than enough for all! Yes, we'd quickly overpopulate in such an environment of success for all, but this is how we launch ourselves into space colonization with incredible success as well - just think of how much more we'd be willing to invest into such a direction if it wasn't ONLY for the purpose of achieving competitive profit!

If there were only positive lists, any new idea would be immediately forbidden, and you must request permission instead.

I'm confused by this statement. Please substantiate a bit.

Take even the minimum wage law you mentioned. What if someone had the idea to pay their workers only very little money, but give them additional benefits instead of a higher wage, like free housing, free insurance, employee shares? Perhaps benefits that have never been tried before. Would that be allowed?

In some states the minimum wage CAN be less than normal by alternative wage compensations - for example, a waitress might be allowed to make less than half min wage from the employer with the expectation that they will be compensated by tip income, which ends up terrifically unfair for those employees quite often, particularly if they are employed at a slow restaurant. It's a slippery slope to allow for such alternatives. I know you feel that it's then up to the employee to not allow themselves to be taken so advantage of. True... but not all employees are able to show an abnormal amount of value, particularly when they are new to the work world or they've made some mistakes in the past that the vast majority of people won't see past no matter how valuable they might be now. And most employees think they are a lot more valuable and good at their jobs than they actually are.

 

[tmv]

Education is not enough - if it was, we wouldn't have so many well educated masters degree level scientists working in industries nowhere near what they went to school and got a degree for.

True, although there might be different reasons for that. In one of his books Michio Kaku wrote that during the Vietnam War, junior scientists were no longer exempted from conscription, whereas teachers were - many hopeful scientists permanently transferred to the school system in those days (really bright idea by the government, that one). Of course, most of those teachers should be retired by now.

Again, if the globe started adopting this kind of system because it works wherever it's adopted, then you'd see a lot of health all over and we'd be one massively powerful cooperative species rather than the mess of violent competitors we feel we must be because we believe there's not enough to go around when there should be MORE than enough for all! Yes, we'd quickly overpopulate in such an environment of success for all, but this is how we launch ourselves into space colonization with incredible success as well - just think of how much more we'd be willing to invest into such a direction if it wasn't ONLY for the purpose of achieving competitive profit!

Unfortunately, it seems to be out of our hands by now. Where the Western world - mostly - would be willing to work together in that way, these countries no longer dominate the world like they still did in the 90s. And China guards its borders like no Western politician would do.

Yes, we must focus on the part of the problem we can deal with ourselves, but where we can see that our efforts would not be welcome it's a bit futile.

I'm confused by this statement. Please substantiate a bit.

Imagine a law system where everything was formulated in positive lists. Something new gets invented or thought of. This is not going to be on any of those lists, so it's automatically forbidden. To be able to do that, you first would have to request permission. Whereas in a law system where everything was in negative lists, any new invention or idea wouldn't - at first - be on any of those lists either, making them automatically permitted. While the latter can be risky in certain situations, the former is completely unacceptable.

In some states the minimum wage CAN be less than normal by alternative wage compensations - for example, a waitress might be allowed to make less than half min wage from the employer with the expectation that they will be compensated by tip income, which ends up terrifically unfair for those employees quite often, particularly if they are employed at a slow restaurant. It's a slippery slope to allow for such alternatives. I know you feel that it's then up to the employee to not allow themselves to be taken so advantage of. True... but not all employees are able to show an abnormal amount of value, particularly when they are new to the work world or they've made some mistakes in the past that the vast majority of people won't see past no matter how valuable they might be now. And most employees think they are a lot more valuable and good at their jobs than they actually are.

Yes, but what I mentioned was more along the line of a business not actively trying to cheat its employees - more like where some forms of compensations might be a lot easier for that enterprise. I could imagine such a case with a very young business, where the owner (and founder) neither has a lot of money nor wants to increase the bank loans too much - in such cases I could imagine that some forms of compensation could be easier to handle than a comparatively higher wage.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Imagine a law system where everything was formulated in positive lists. Something new gets invented or thought of. This is not going to be on any of those lists, so it's automatically forbidden. To be able to do that, you first would have to request permission. Whereas in a law system where everything was in negative lists, any new invention or idea wouldn't - at first - be on any of those lists either, making them automatically permitted. While the latter can be risky in certain situations, the former is completely unacceptable.

It's hard to envision the first scenario because we have always been operating in a mostly control environment where we've determined what you can't do rather than what you have to do - not much has to be defined along those lines but on occasion it does need to be defined, just as in any kind of programming environment you have if/then statements in the law.

Yes, but what I mentioned was more along the line of a business not actively trying to cheat its employees - more like where some forms of compensations might be a lot easier for that enterprise. I could imagine such a case with a very young business, where the owner (and founder) neither has a lot of money nor wants to increase the bank loans too much - in such cases I could imagine that some forms of compensation could be easier to handle than a comparatively higher wage.

Minimum isn't much so starting with that shouldn't be to hard to ask for. From there alternative options of compensation abound. It used to be the way we got health care out to people was to give a tax break enough to the business to promote them wanting to give a lucrative health care package. It's still attempted but you can't give enough of a break this way to make it worthwhile for many businesses given the astronomical cost of good health coverage. Some companies can get away with it if they really did want to pay that much more but then a lot of folks would prefer to save on the policy plan and take the $ the company is investing instead.

 

[Trantor]

now in turn 1500 and game speed is good - 1min turns. large earth map.
considering all previous games the turn speeds used to go up to 30-40mins, hence whatever changes are made are awesome!!

 

[tmv]

It's hard to envision the first scenario because we have always been operating in a mostly control environment where we've determined what you can't do rather than what you have to do - not much has to be defined along those lines but on occasion it does need to be defined, just as in any kind of programming environment you have if/then statements in the law.

In Medieval times the former might not have been that uncommon, and not even just for serfs. The ability to hold permissions over people's heads can be the foundation of a great amount of power, and you know how especially "Lawful Evil" people would just love that. And even today there are a few (hopefully very few) exceptions, like e.g. the driver's license before you are allowed to operate a car.

Minimum isn't much so starting with that shouldn't be to hard to ask for. From there alternative options of compensation abound.

It is a possibility, but there might be situations where a comparatively strong benefit package is easier for the employer than higher wages. According to https://www.thebalancecareers.com/2017-federal-state-minimum-wage-rates-2061043 the federal minimum wage is $ 7.25, whereas e.g. Nevada has a minimum wage of $ 8.25. But in (the state of) Washington, the minimum wage is $ 11.50, and from 7/1/19, the minimum wage for D.C. is $ 14.00. At least in the last case, it is certainly imaginable (especially for a new business), that some benefits could be easier for the employer than this minimum wage.

It used to be the way we got health care out to people was to give a tax break enough to the business to promote them wanting to give a lucrative health care package. It's still attempted but you can't give enough of a break this way to make it worthwhile for many businesses given the astronomical cost of good health coverage. Some companies can get away with it if they really did want to pay that much more but then a lot of folks would prefer to save on the policy plan and take the $ the company is investing instead.

In Germany there are quite a few cases where big corporations operate their own insurance company for their employees, although by now many of them have been opened to the general public. The rationale is that an insurance company still is a for-profit organization, which leads to the payment rates being on average higher than what you might expect to get out of it. Of course, single persons could never afford that risk, but for a big company, the mathematical average becomes a reality with their large numbers. So they operate their own insurance and save the profit margin for themselves (I think they do the same thing e.g. for car insurance and other needed coverage).

 

[Thunderbrd]

In Medieval times the former might not have been that uncommon, and not even just for serfs. The ability to hold permissions over people's heads can be the foundation of a great amount of power, and you know how especially "Lawful Evil" people would just love that. And even today there are a few (hopefully very few) exceptions, like e.g. the driver's license before you are allowed to operate a car.

It'd be pretty scary on the roads if people didn't have to prove proficiency with driving to be out there. Generally I get your point but there are always going to be exceptions to the 'probably should keep things in the positive' rule. As my mother often had to explain in response to my question of 'what did I do wrong?', "it's not what you DID, it's what you DIDN'T do!" Sometimes not doing something is a problem. Back to the driving example, if you choose not to stop at a red light, you're in the wrong. If traffic lights can't tell you to stop, we have a big problem society-wide.

"Lawful Evil"? You must be reading my twitter feeds of late.

It is a possibility, but there might be situations where a comparatively strong benefit package is easier for the employer than higher wages. According to https://www.thebalancecareers.com/2017-federal-state-minimum-wage-rates-2061043 the federal minimum wage is $ 7.25, whereas e.g. Nevada has a minimum wage of $ 8.25. But in (the state of) Washington, the minimum wage is $ 11.50, and from 7/1/19, the minimum wage for D.C. is $ 14.00. At least in the last case, it is certainly imaginable (especially for a new business), that some benefits could be easier for the employer than this minimum wage.

I would probably advocate no minimum wage at all and allow it to be entirely organic IF we had an effective Basic Income system in place so that it's not up to employers to ensure the survival of the people of the nation. At that point, we'd probably ALSO see higher overall wages (and more valuable benefit packages) because employees wouldn't feel powerless to refuse a low wage because they can survive just fine without it.

In Germany there are quite a few cases where big corporations operate their own insurance company for their employees, although by now many of them have been opened to the general public. The rationale is that an insurance company still is a for-profit organization, which leads to the payment rates being on average higher than what you might expect to get out of it. Of course, single persons could never afford that risk, but for a big company, the mathematical average becomes a reality with their large numbers. So they operate their own insurance and save the profit margin for themselves (I think they do the same thing e.g. for car insurance and other needed coverage)

Makes sense, much like how Dominoes Pizza, Taco Bell and other companies owned under the same roof all benefit from owning their own shipping company and central food supply systems that keep their food costs so far down nobody can price compete with them.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

... And even today there are a few (hopefully very few) exceptions, like e.g. the driver's license before you are allowed to operate a car.

Actually there are a huge number of such regulations in most nations, simply as an aid safety if nothing more. There are restrictions on explosives, access to dangerous chemicals and some non-dangerous chemicals that make dangerous chemicals, plus many more. Mostly these restrictions are there to ensure that a person has been trained in the careful use of such things so that they don't have an accident and harm themselves or others.

Other restrictions on companies follow a similar line, ie aim to reduce the harm to people. The one that mandates that the inflow of water into a company must be downstream from the out flow is a good example that has cleaned up many rivers.

 

[tmv]

It'd be pretty scary on the roads if people didn't have to prove proficiency with driving to be out there. Generally I get your point but there are always going to be exceptions to the 'probably should keep things in the positive' rule. As my mother often had to explain in response to my question of 'what did I do wrong?', "it's not what you DID, it's what you DIDN'T do!" Sometimes not doing something is a problem. Back to the driving example, if you choose not to stop at a red light, you're in the wrong. If traffic lights can't tell you to stop, we have a big problem society-wide.

Yes, there are exceptions. And in many cases it is a matter of wording. Of course you can spell the driver's license in a way that it is more like a ban rather than a permission: "You must not drive without a license." That might actually make more sense, because to order you (positively) to drive with a license, "they" would have to take the freedom away not to drive. Since this does not happen (at least from the government), this is not an order you have to comply with.

"Lawful Evil"? You must be reading my twitter feeds of late.

Sorry, no - but there were a few D&D-like games I have played in the past. I'm sure it won't surprise you that I consider Lawful Evil to be worse than Chaotic Evil.

I would probably advocate no minimum wage at all and allow it to be entirely organic IF we had an effective Basic Income system in place so that it's not up to employers to ensure the survival of the people of the nation. At that point, we'd probably ALSO see higher overall wages (and more valuable benefit packages) because employees wouldn't feel powerless to refuse a low wage because they can survive just fine without it.

Something like that might actually be better than minimum wage - or at least, wouldn't have the same drawbacks (the major drawback not even being the destruction of jobs, but the necessity of a lot of oversight). There was the proposal in Germany once (that wasn't pursued any further, perhaps unfortunately) to introduce some kind of "negative income tax" for those people with no or very little income, and combine all existing social measures into that one (and give that task to the tax office).

Makes sense, much like how Dominoes Pizza, Taco Bell and other companies owned under the same roof all benefit from owning their own shipping company and central food supply systems that keep their food costs so far down nobody can price compete with them.

Yes, that is quite similar - and it makes employees even less likely to quit.

Actually there are a huge number of such regulations in most nations, simply as an aid safety if nothing more. There are restrictions on explosives, access to dangerous chemicals and some non-dangerous chemicals that make dangerous chemicals, plus many more. Mostly these restrictions are there to ensure that a person has been trained in the careful use of such things so that they don't have an accident and harm themselves or others.

Other restrictions on companies follow a similar line, ie aim to reduce the harm to people. The one that mandates that the inflow of water into a company must be downstream from the out flow is a good example that has cleaned up many rivers.

Yes, I have phrased that a bit poorly - what I meant (see above) is positive orders to people to do something, as opposed to forbidding people from doing something - with the former being a lot more restrictive. Most of those regulations you mentioned are more of the latter kind, as long as they existed already when the company was formed (or have a Grandfather Clause - probably not that often when it comes to environmental protection). And yes, sometimes it's unavoidable. But that should be seen more as a "necessary evil" instead of "business as usual".

 

[Toffer90]

I would probably advocate no minimum wage at all

None of the Scandinavian countries have minimum wage laws, though we still have among the highest effective minimum wage for unskilled work in the world. That is the case because our politicians have empowered the labour unions here so much through socialistic regulations that the workers themselves can almost dictate to employers what is considered an acceptable salary.
Our labour unions negotiate the salary for all workers within an industry even for those who are not members of the labour unions. About 50% of Norwegians are members of labour unions.

 

[raxo2222]

@Toffer90 What diplomatic relations were in between USA and Scandinavian countries during cold war?
It seems like you went as left as you could without actually destroying yourselves unlike unlucky countries in Asia and Latin America
Also USA didn't like those countries too to put lightly.

Were they fine with left outside of USA as long as there was democracy?

 

[Toffer90]

@Toffer90 What diplomatic relations were in between USA and Scandinavian countries during cold war?
It seems like you went as left as you could without actually destroying yourselves unlike unlucky countries in Asia and Latin America
Also USA didn't like those countries too to put lightly.

Were they fine with left outside of USA as long as there was democracy?

My theory is that the USA was somewhat ignorant of what went down politically in Scandinavian countries.
Scandinavian countries were very cooperative with the US throughout the cold war, so the US had no real reason to put those countries under the scope to find reasons to make us the enemy.
It kinda went without saying that the Scandinavian countries were fully under the US sphere of influence so no one really questioned those countries much. ^^
There was also earlier historical reasons for Scandinavian countries to be counted as trusted members of the western sphere.

Scandinavian countries have slowly been moving away from socialism since the 80's, so that has probably been giving some peace of mind to those most afraid of socialism in the western world.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Yes, there are exceptions. And in many cases it is a matter of wording. Of course you can spell the driver's license in a way that it is more like a ban rather than a permission: "You must not drive without a license." That might actually make more sense, because to order you (positively) to drive with a license, "they" would have to take the freedom away not to drive. Since this does not happen (at least from the government), this is not an order you have to comply with.

I'm kinda feeling, after thinking on this discussion, like the distinction isn't really that important to make. The rules should be beneficial to society and the enhancement of freedoms as much as possible. It is often that the restriction of a freedom for one means the protection of many other freedoms. The point is not whether it's a positively worded regulation or a negatively worded one so much as that the spirit and letter of the rule is one that benefits society rather than being a corruption of power. If you try to hobble the expression of the rules, you may end up inadvertently corrupting the intention of the rule. As Metallica says, "Energy's derived from both the plus and negative!"

Sorry, no - but there were a few D&D-like games I have played in the past. I'm sure it won't surprise you that I consider Lawful Evil to be worse than Chaotic Evil.

My True Neutral alignment would claim that neither is worse than the other, both are horrible but at times necessary to the big picture and a natural response to emotional process. Both are very dangerous in very different ways. Perhaps worse than both is the Neutral Evil...

Something like that might actually be better than minimum wage - or at least, wouldn't have the same drawbacks (the major drawback not even being the destruction of jobs, but the necessity of a lot of oversight). There was the proposal in Germany once (that wasn't pursued any further, perhaps unfortunately) to introduce some kind of "negative income tax" for those people with no or very little income, and combine all existing social measures into that one (and give that task to the tax office).

That could work too. I favor a more simple solution that doesn't evaluate the income of the individual so as to not demotivate individuals to go out and make more $ on top of what they get from the government. ALL get the base income, even the wealthiest who will consider it laughably small but will serve to remind them of what many live on. This way nobody can complain because all are getting it equally.

Yes, that is quite similar - and it makes employees even less likely to quit.

Yeah, big umbrella companies that own one company to support the other is a big part of what makes the mega corps unbeatable. It's just smart given that they are allowed to do it. Of course, goes to show my point from earlier about what it's like for the small guy to compete with them though.

Yes, I have phrased that a bit poorly - what I meant (see above) is positive orders to people to do something, as opposed to forbidding people from doing something - with the former being a lot more restrictive. Most of those regulations you mentioned are more of the latter kind, as long as they existed already when the company was formed (or have a Grandfather Clause - probably not that often when it comes to environmental protection). And yes, sometimes it's unavoidable. But that should be seen more as a "necessary evil" instead of "business as usual".

I get the point though. It's why I balk at the mandatory buy-in of health care... I find that morally incorrect. It's like saying to everyone, "Well the reason you can't afford health care is because you're not purchasing it, so we'll just force you to and you'll be able to afford it because you're buying it." huh? I get their rationale of bringing it down for all but the minimum coverage is worse than useless and only serves to make the more expensive policies cheaper and doesn't help much for those who must purchase that pathetic degree of coverage because they still can't afford the co-pays and premiums and the max payouts don't cover much. Ends up being a shell game where the poor still get further ripped off. And before republicans start saying it's the dem's fault, it was Romney's plan that got put into place and called Obama care so it really didn't matter which one won the presidency did it?

My theory is that the USA was somewhat ignorant of what went down politically in Scandinavian countries.
Scandinavian countries were very cooperative with the US throughout the cold war, so the US had no real reason to put those countries under the scope to find reasons to make us the enemy.
It kinda went without saying that the Scandinavian countries were fully under the US sphere of influence so no one really questioned those countries much. ^^
There was also earlier historical reasons for Scandinavian countries to be counted as trusted members of the western sphere.

Scandinavian countries have slowly been moving away from socialism since the 80's, so that has probably been giving some peace of mind to those most afraid of socialism in the western world.

Interesting discussion. I asked a historian friend about why he felt we were so dramatically and violently opposed to communism and his perspective was that it wasn't really the economic side of things so much as it was just another rising competitive power base. Given that Scandinavian countries were, as you correctly express, so closely aligned with us diplomatically, we just didn't really make it public knowledge that such strong socialism was being adopted there. We still don't really care - Russia is a capitalist state now and it's still the prime opposition to many forces in our government. Communism was just a way to identify the enemy and demonize them. Much negative that's been taught here, economically, about socialism and communism has been taught for propagandic reasons. I'm sure much about capitalism on the other side of the fence has been much the same - it isn't THAT bad a system and does have it's place in a health economic body. I'm the odd duck that gives some credence and criticism to both and urge instead a strategic balance between the two.

 

[raxo2222]

Interesting discussion. I asked a historian friend about why he felt we were so dramatically and violently opposed to communism and his perspective was that it wasn't really the economic side of things so much as it was just another rising competitive power base. Given that Scandinavian countries were, as you correctly express, so closely aligned with us diplomatically, we just didn't really make it public knowledge that such strong socialism was being adopted there. We still don't really care - Russia is a capitalist state now and it's still the prime opposition to many forces in our government. Communism was just a way to identify the enemy and demonize them. Much negative that's been taught here, economically, about socialism and communism has been taught for propagandic reasons. I'm sure much about capitalism on the other side of the fence has been much the same - it isn't THAT bad a system and does have it's place in a health economic body. I'm the odd duck that gives some credence and criticism to both and urge instead a strategic balance between the two.

So there wouldn't be too much difference, if Russia was christian (any "flavor" of this religion) theocracy or old fashioned military dictatorship or monarchy instead of communism, just that church and religion or something else would be under siege instead of communism/socialism

 

[tmv]

I'm kinda feeling, after thinking on this discussion, like the distinction isn't really that important to make. The rules should be beneficial to society and the enhancement of freedoms as much as possible. It is often that the restriction of a freedom for one means the protection of many other freedoms. The point is not whether it's a positively worded regulation or a negatively worded one so much as that the spirit and letter of the rule is one that benefits society rather than being a corruption of power. If you try to hobble the expression of the rules, you may end up inadvertently corrupting the intention of the rule. As Metallica says, "Energy's derived from both the plus and negative!"

It's still about being as un-restrictive as possible - people must live their own lives, and the regulator rarely accepts responsibility if whatever they forced people to do ended up (inadvertently) hurting them.

My True Neutral alignment would claim that neither is worse than the other, both are horrible but at times necessary to the big picture and a natural response to emotional process. Both are very dangerous in very different ways. Perhaps worse than both is the Neutral Evil...

One ends up "just" being an obstacle to the good guys, the other constructs a "building of evil" where they don't let anyone out - at least the latter is far more repressive.

That could work too. I favor a more simple solution that doesn't evaluate the income of the individual so as to not demotivate individuals to go out and make more $ on top of what they get from the government. ALL get the base income, even the wealthiest who will consider it laughably small but will serve to remind them of what many live on. This way nobody can complain because all are getting it equally.

Of course it must be made sure that the "curve" is always rising, or in other words that you never end up poorer for any $ you gain. I don't know about the USA, but that is part of our tax code (hasn't always been that way, in which case people ended up voluntarily turning down a bit of money and ending up with more, only the civil servants were not allowed to do that ...).

I get the point though. It's why I balk at the mandatory buy-in of health care... I find that morally incorrect. It's like saying to everyone, "Well the reason you can't afford health care is because you're not purchasing it, so we'll just force you to and you'll be able to afford it because you're buying it." huh? I get their rationale of bringing it down for all but the minimum coverage is worse than useless and only serves to make the more expensive policies cheaper and doesn't help much for those who must purchase that pathetic degree of coverage because they still can't afford the co-pays and premiums and the max payouts don't cover much. Ends up being a shell game where the poor still get further ripped off. And before republicans start saying it's the dem's fault, it was Romney's plan that got put into place and called Obama care so it really didn't matter which one won the presidency did it?

I seem to remember that the first president who wanted to implement a healthcare system was Nixon.

 

[Toffer90]

I seem to remember that the first president who wanted to implement a healthcare system was Nixon.

I was of the impression that Harry S. Truman was one of the first US presidents who tried to implement a type of universal healthcare system.
He was involved in the drafting of the Japanese constitution (A really good one imo, quite similar to western European constitutions in regards to welfare laws), and after that he proposed the fair deal which contained a lot of points that were in the same spirits as to that found in the Japanese constitution.
Most of the "Fair Deal" points got turned down in congress, and never became part of US law (a pity imo).

 

[raxo2222]

@tmv why you don't want to have USA as "socialist" as Germany?

Doesn't Germany have heavier regulations than USA in general?

Just for fun:
Fragile States index (scale is 120 - 0): Norway - 18.3, Germany - 25,8, USA - 37.7, Poland - 41.5.
Anything below 30 is sustainable and below 60 is stable.
Best: Finland - 17.9
Worst: South Sudan - 113.4

Economic Freedom Index (scale is 0 - 100): United States - 75.7, Norway - 74.3, Germany - 74,2, Poland - 68.5.
Practically those countries have same economic freedom level considering regional variations.
100 - 80 is Free and 80 - 60 is Mostly Free.
Best: Hong Kong - 90.2
Worst: North Korea 5.8 (most of countries are at 40 and higher)

Democracy index (scale is 0 - 10): Norway - 9.87 (Its first in this ranking), Germany - 8.61, United States - 7.98, Poland - 6.67.
They are Full Democracies, but USA is borderline Flawed Democracy with its score being below 8.00.
Best: Norway - 9.87
Worst: North Korea - 1.08

Inequality adjusted HDI ranking (Scale is 0 - 1): Norway - 0.876, Germany - 0.861, United States - 0.797, Poland - 0.787.
Good job, Europe.
Best: Iceland - 0.878
Worst: Central African Republic - 0.212

Global Competitiveness Index (Scale is 1 - 7): United States - 5.85, Germany - 5.65 , Norway - 5.40, Poland - 4.59.
Good job, America
Best: Switzerland - 5.86
Worst: Yemen - 2.87

On world stage those countries are very good despite their shortcomings.

I wonder how correlated those indexes are - they all measure different social, economical and political issues, but some of them are measured or have effect in multiple indexes.

I wonder what it would take to develop country even more, so it would have indexes at <10, >90, >9.95, >0.95 and >6.5 for example.
Some kind of AI?
Also it is very hard for country to move itself by 10% of range in ranking up or down within year without external influence.