Government Specific UUs

[dh_epic]

Whew, good question. I'm so surprised I don't know the answer, because I should -- it's not like it's unprecedented. What happened to your fanatics in Civ 2?

Also, I don't consider the Scandinavian countries socialist so much as "mixed". I personally think the best economy is a mixed economy -- if anything, Marx didn't count on capitalism mixing to preserve itself. If free market capitalism didn't mix with some regulations, there would be no checks and balances on businesses, and workers *would* be exploited, wages *would* fall, businesses *would* consolidate into fewer and fewer hands, and society would become more and more volatile -- less democratic. The climax of this volatility would be revolution, according to Marx, except that we've been smarter than to not fall into this trap.

Of course, I couldn't tell you how to model "mixed" as a government. Certainly doesn't make for a nice government label.

 

[sir_schwick]

How about they turn into Barbs/Rebels which are at war against you? This makes sense because this would represent a civil war when you change government.

They could even join a neighbor of similair persuasion, or be out for hire, like all the East European terrorists.

I am not 100% on this, but I thought a lot of the regulation of industry had to do first with labour unioins. Labor discovered if they acted as one body they could threaten production. Also, the great depression taught that natural systems flucutate a lot more than regulated ones.

Economic anarchy leads to the same thing as political anarchy, rule by the most ruthless.

 

[Teabeard]

Capitalism doesn't need to 'mix' to survive. It works great as it is and there is no better system.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Ever heard of Standard Oil? Or AT&T?

 

[Teabeard]

Yeah, and they are what made the USA so economically strong.

 

[dh_epic]

But there's more to the potency of an economic model than your GDP.

America has a slightly mixed economy as well -- there are constraints to prevent monopolies, to prevent people from selling harmful or fraudulent products, and to assure ideal working conditions. These constraints prevent capitalism from destroying itself -- from getting the people so angry that the bonds of trust that make up a society fall apart.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yeah, and they are what made the USA so economically strong.

Which is why we got rid of them.

 

[norwegianviking]

They could even join a neighbor of similair persuasion, or be out for hire, like all the East European terrorists.QUOTE]

I like this idea, exept for the join neighbor of similar government part, why give the AI free units just because you switched governments, I say that they become rebels that your new government troops have to crush to finish the revolution.

 

[Teabeard]

But there's more to the potency of an economic model than your GDP.

America has a slightly mixed economy as well -- there are constraints to prevent monopolies, to prevent people from selling harmful or fraudulent products, and to assure ideal working conditions. These constraints prevent capitalism from destroying itself -- from getting the people so angry that the bonds of trust that make up a society fall apart.

The Free Market has it's own constraints that prevent capitalism from destroying itself. Ever heard of private regulation and personal regulation? A business has it in it's best interest not to introduce harmful products or else it will face lawsuits and a PR nightmare. Consumers have the choice not to buy what they don't want to and there are organizations such as consumer reports which review products for safety and quality so that people can make informed decisions on what to buy and what not to buy. So you see the free market regulates itself.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

You guys seem to be comparing 2 different eras in human history somewhat out of context. Early on, there WAS a great deal of exploitation and corruption by companies like Standard Oil, the various railroads, and so on. There were no controls over them, and they could pretty much do as they pleased. This is what led to the rise of organized labor and the Socialist movement in the first place. Today, there are controls to prevent at least most of this kind of thing, at least in the developed countries. One might say that organized labor and socialism were responsible at least in part for the great changes that have swept over the industrialized world in the last century. Maybe it is fair to say even countries considered bastions of capitalism, like the US, are a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the country.

This does not hold true in places like China or other 3rd world areas, where below-subsistence wages and ruthless repression of labor is still the order of the day. Of course, 1st World corporations are still making killer profits as a result of this, but the plump denizens of the 1st world countries turn a blind eye to the situation, except for the occasional cooing over an article in their local paper about exploitation of factory workers in a Chinese province they couldn't pick out on a map, or when a well known celebrity turns out to have an interest in a sweatshop operation in Central America.

Of course, we in America and Europe are in the Modern age, these other places are still in the Industrial age. Hmmm, time to build some Modern Armor and make China give us Silk and Spices

 

[sir_schwick]

Well stated Ivan. My friend once had an interesting point I will present here. Almost all the demands of the Socialist party in the United States in the late 19th century have been fulfilled at some point since then. Laizzez Faire(spelled wrong) economics was proven to perpetuate a cycle of abuse. Many of you do seem to forget that before partial economic regulation that large corporations and banks could walk all over whoever they wanted to.

Right now China is still trying to modernize their economy, but they will be a considerable consumer within twenty years. Over the past thirty years, or pretty much since the Cultural Revolution, they have been slowly returning the economy to capitalist rather than to a state controlled lean.

 

[Provolution]

There should be the following ten governments inorder to balance the game

Despotism
Monarchy
Republic

Feudalism
Colonialism
Absolutism

Communism
Fascism
Democracy

Fundamentalism

Gov specific units

Government Army Units Naval Units Air Units Workers Diplomacy

Despotism Chariots Riverboats Falconeers
Monarchy Lancers Trireme Hawkers
Republic Crossbowmen Galley Peace Doves

Feudalism Knights Cog Scout Balloon
Colonialism Conquistadors Galleon Barrage Balloon
Absolutism Dragoons Privateer Airship

Communism Guerrillas Nuclear Submarine Heavy Heli
Fascism Stormtroopers Stealth Submarine Heavy Fighter
Democracy Commandos Liberty Ship Heavy Bomber

Fundamentalism Terrorists Suidicide Ship Suicide Plane Suicide Bomber Student

 

[dh_epic]

Not that I agree with communism, but I agree with many of the things that Marx otherwise had to say. Capitalism -- if left to regulate itself -- would spin further and further out of control (or into greater control, depending on how you look at it). Wages would keep falling as companies compete with each other. How do you think an American company would compete with a company working out of Indonesia? Drop the minimum wage substantially. But we have laws to prevent this -- some people say to our detriment, but I see making less than 5 dollars an hour nothing but a bad thing, no matter how many people try to tell me that "it would be good for the economy".

These are the same people who will tell you that outsourcing is good for our economy. You first need to ask WHO'S economy. Since checks and balances have been removed in the past few years, corporate profits have increased, yes. But the average wage for workers has actually fallen, and can't even keep up with inflation. And the "trickle down" isn't coming -- there were a couple hundred thousand jobs created in the first part of 2004, and now the job recovery is slowing to a halt.

And Enron and Worldcom are doing very little to keep our faith in the economy, that any positive numbers are really representative of any real gains, not to mention what happened to the economy in California and how no amount of lawsuits can undo that damage.

You need to mix a free market with checks and balances, with basic elements of social justice and fairness. But I think Ivan put it better than I did.

 

[sir_schwick]

Colonialism entails many varying forms of governance and economic systems. Maybe if there are provinces each one could have a different government system, such as colonial for far away and Republic for loyal ones, like in ancient Rome.

 

[rhialto]

unique units for governments should exist in the game, but only where it would make sense. Shoe-horning a unit into a governemnt just to "balance" thinsg just looks ridiculous. It makes sense for Fascism (stormtrooper), arguably Communism, definitely for certain futuristic govs, and certain brands of theocracy (A Buddhist theocracy won't have mujahadin). For other govs, I see no real reason to include a unique unit.

And WTH is a peace dove unit meant to do?

 

[dh_epic]

I agree with rhialto. Units should exist to give governments a benefit where they might not usually have one.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

These are the same people who will tell you that outsourcing is good for our economy. You first need to ask WHO'S economy. Since checks and balances have been removed in the past few years, corporate profits have increased, yes. But the average wage for workers has actually fallen, and can't even keep up with inflation. And the "trickle down" isn't coming -- there were a couple hundred thousand jobs created in the first part of 2004, and now the job recovery is slowing to a halt.

And Enron and Worldcom are doing very little to keep our faith in the economy, that any positive numbers are really representative of any real gains, not to mention what happened to the economy in California and how no amount of lawsuits can undo that damage.

You need to mix a free market with checks and balances, with basic elements of social justice and fairness. But I think Ivan put it better than I did.

I wonder if we are entering a new era of unrestrained capitalism. Your comments above ring very true. Many ppl are losing their jobs to outsourcing, and having to take new jobs that pay much less. Maybe at some point the majority of us will be working at McDonalds, or Starbucks, and not daring to complain about our wages lest we receive a visit from the Department of Homeland Security about "terroristic agitation".

One interesting work of fiction ppl may enjoy reading about such a situation in the US is "The Iron Heel", by Jack London. This book is interesting to me because in it, he predicted the rise of "protected worker classes" set up by the Iron Heel to make sure that they could divide the workers and thus prevent full scale revolt without damaging their profits too badly. This prediction came true with the creation of unions later on. Today, unions are not so powerful, but they control most of the good paying semiskilled jobs in the manufacturing sector, and you need an "in" if you want such a job. Working at McDonalds for $7.00/hr and want a $13.00/hr job down at the local sheet metal fabrication plant? Better have a relative on the job to get you in the door.

Maybe we will be seeing the stuff we saw in the first half of the 20th century all over again at some point. Workers of the world, unite!

 

[dh_epic]

Unions were a necessary invention -- for a while at the start of the 20th century, workers were actually physically abused and intimidated! Now some Unions are almost as bad as some Corporations -- but I'd argue that both are absolutely necessary. If we're intelligent, the social structure will evolve more checks and balances. It's just the way things (should) go.

 

[sir_schwick]

Yes, eventually some of the manufacturing unions will have to either disappear or move on to industries that need protection in the US. Manufacturing inside the US is stupid in most cases due to NAFTA, CFTA, and FTAA. Unions are necessary, but many are putting themselves out of business.

 

[rhialto]

Unions were a necessary invention -- for a while at the start of the 20th century, workers were actually physically abused and intimidated!

And in some countries, this still happens, and not just in 'working class' jobs. I have personal experience of this. And it is not a country I have any intention of ever going back to.