State Property completey wrong

[picardathon]

Well now that he's been proven wrong Bush is saying we're "spreading democracy" which apparently means "giving democracy a bad name by placing liberty over running water"
Maslo's hierarchy of needs states that if one ruler gave me food and didn't give me liberty and the vote, and the other one gave me liberty and the vote and took away my food, I'm going to go with the first one, because I'm not interested in starving.

 

[Skirmisher]

Isn't the EU policy on agriculture at least approaching state property? Many farmers in the EU only exist because they get massive funding from EU agricultural subsidies, which btw is the single largest item in the EU budget. I would hate to see what would happen if the EU agricultural market was 'liberalized'.

 

[devilhunterred]

the invasion of iraq was totaly legit, to remove a tryranical dictator that used chemical weapons against kurd civilians in massive events of genocide. if your against removing such people from soceity, please die. and yes america is a big 'user' of the 'lesser' peoples, but all the countries were like that at one point, its just that this is the modern times and we are all here to critisize the actions.

wow, you are pretty stupid....

you do realize that even now no WMD is ever found in Iraq right?

in fact the inspectator got so pissed that he was wasting time in iraq chasing for some phantom biological weapons made up by the US and he resigned the post

wow sadam killed its people!!! im glad you brought this up, because America did the same

remember the kent state university massacre in 1970? police started shooting at college students because they were protesting against vietnam war

and really US is just a big bully picking on the smallest kid (Iraq) in school, i dont see him going after North Korea and removing Kim, no, becaue he is the bodybuilding big kid with a daddy's shotgun back home and even US doesn't dare to touch

iraq was just a poor kid living in a ghetto town, but happns to find a Kitkat bar on the way home (oil), US the big bully saw this happen and knowing iraq has no parents back home (wmd), he striked

but who made US the world police? i dont remember there is ever a UN permittion for US to attack Iraq, even though it did so anyways, nor was there ever a vote to say that US can remove a country's government as he pleased

 

[devilhunterred]

Isn't the EU policy on agriculture at least approaching state property? Many farmers in the EU only exist because they get massive funding from EU agricultural subsidies, which btw is the single largest item in the EU budget. I would hate to see what would happen if the EU agricultural market was 'liberalized'.

not really, the gov is paying for the crops just so the industry can survive, it's just an example of a mixed economy

state property is when the state takes your crops away without giving you back anything in return

 

[devilhunterred]

saddam killed those kurdish civies more than 10 years ago. i didn't see the US go in to remove saddam right away?

even if you buy into the WMD theory (still!), bush went in to protect AMERICANS from saddam's WMD, not to protect the kurds. else he would have done that years ago. the united states looks out for only the united states and its closest allies (israel, uk). if you really belive the iraqi war was to liberate iraqis, you probably believe in miss cleo too

i agree, romelus

glad to actually see an politics/history intelletual here on this board

im just so tired and sick of idiots like zb2

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, haven't had a chance to read all the posts, but here are a couple of little things:

1) I think the food from workshops and Watermills is a little unrealistic, but probably represents the redistribution of food via State-Owned enterprises.

2) I don't think it should give a reduced maintainance cost for distance from capital, though. This is a far better function for Mercantilism (as that economic approach actively encouraged the creation of Colonies to monopolise global resources).

3) In my own civics mod (plug, plug ), I have given State Property the Free Specialist ability, and handed the no maintainance cost ability to Mercantislism. Of course, I have also balanced out Mercantlism by giving it bonus hammers from Camps and Lumbermills.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Jawsofwar]

How did this go from state property forum to a devilhunterred knows everything thread?

 

[qwert]

but USSR suffered femine under Lenin's rule as well, but we see that Russia was still able to become a superpower and compete with US since the 40s and onward

OK. Russia was able to compete with the US from 1945 to 1991.
But it was mostly because of his military power and military industry from world war II. The atemp of maintaining such a military power during almost 50 years, finally caused the USSR economy to collaps and ended the cold war.

 

[qwert]

whatever required to get the job done


the demand for child labour is there, so there will be supply even if the chinees gov tries to stop it, it's just like illegal drugs, and where does the demand come from? American multinationals like Nike

US only became a superpower because of the wealth it earned selling weapons and supplies in WWI and WWII

In reality most western countries, including the US, have a ban on products produced by children work. Most of the children are employed in local factories, property of local bussiness man.
It is true that Niked used children to work on factories, but the skandall promoted the ban which I have mentioned. The cause of this ban was that many children ended in even worse conditions than before it.
With this I`m not saying that i`m in favour of child work, I opose it.

The US was an economic superpower even before WW1. It was one of the most industrialized nations of the world. WW1 only was the step to a political and military superpower.

 

[qwert]

if you really belive the iraqi war was to liberate iraqis, you probably believe in miss cleo too

The liberation of the iraqi could be called a "colateral positive effect" ... if the situation doesn`t turn out of controll.

 

[Hey Joni]

The liberation of the iraqi could be called a "colateral positive effect" ... if the situation doesn`t turn out of controll.

I thought it already did...

@yavoon: your suggestion to stop our argument is right, be it for the wrong reasons. Just keep in mind that looking from different viewpoints is the best way to learn from history and the best way to manage your own affairs. You should try it out, sometime...

 

[nimbuses]

I must say i completely disagree with you about this. I think that it is always better for pople to be able to choose their own government rather than to have one forced upon them. Also, elections mean that the leaders of the country know that they may be held accountable for their actions. Personally, i don't think George Bush is a good president, but many people in America support him. The same cannot often be said in a dictatorship.

By the way, a majority of America is uneducated? that's news to me.

As I saw in someone's signature somewhere here in forums, Stalin allegedly said that decisions are not made by those who cast ballots, but those who count them! I am hinting at the Florida ballots fraud. And yet Florida happens to be in the US of A. Just have a look at: http://www.nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html

 

[GIO888]

Er, for what it's worth, I've never used the State Property Civic.

I must admit my PC won't let me fight juicy modern era wars (CTD's) Maybe if it did.............

 

[nimbuses]

i agree, romelus

glad to actually see an politics/history intelletual here on this board

im just so tired and sick of idiots like zb2

I agree too. Saddam turned from a good friend, who has been inspired & supported by the US of A, to wage a war on Iran (as we do in the game for our needs) to the devil himself after his military power declined over a decade of sanctions. Even in the first Gulf war (Saddam foolishly believed the US of A ambassador, they won't intervene if Iraq occupies Kuwait), they didn't dare to engage his army to a full extend, they rather waited for a decade to finish him off to get hold of the precious oil (whose high price is now accounted for the revival of Russia as superpower by the way).

 

[Older than Dirt]

The benefits given by State Property in Civ 4 is one of the 3 most aggravating aspects of this game. Why not have flying elephants? (The could bomb the crap out of units) It would be just as realistic. Just what kind of drugs were the designers on? Do you ever get the impression that they sat around discussing what stupidity they could get us to swallow?

 

[yavoon]

I agree too. Saddam turned from a good friend, who has been inspired & supported by the US of A, to wage a war on Iran (as we do in the game for our needs) to the devil himself after his military power declined over a decade of sanctions. Even in the first Gulf war (Saddam foolishly believed the US of A ambassador, they won't intervene if Iraq occupies Kuwait), they didn't dare to engage his army to a full extend, they rather waited for a decade to finish him off to get hold of the precious oil (whose high price is now accounted for the revival of Russia as superpower by the way).

saddam was never a good friend. saddam was just the enemy of our enemy, thats all. and that saddam believed the US would be ok w/ him invading and conquering kuwait is horsehockey.

and the USA after having spent longer in iraq then in WWII has yet to see any of all this oil u neophytes keep chirping about. I guarentee u two things concerning the US gov't, oil and iraq. we will never, ever, ever see a profit from going to iraq for oil, and that was never our intention anyway.

 

[walkingfigment]

Alright, I feel like adding my two cents.

In a captilist country, rich farmland is often purcashed and turned into large shopping malls, or paved over for Wal-Mart. I have seen this done. In that aspect it would seem that a communist country may be able to produce more food, since they get to dictate land use.

Also, economic system does not gurantee political system. Communism does not have to mean dictatorship. ( It would be interesting to see what a Democratic Communist country could do. ) This is not to say it would work, its just a different thought pattern.

Remember, this is just a game, its a rough reflection of the world we live in, but it is a game.

Feel free to disagree and rant now.

 

[lobster]

( It would be interesting to see what a Democratic Communist country could do. )

Venezuela?

 

[romelus]

saddam was never a good friend. saddam was just the enemy of our enemy, thats all. and that saddam believed the US would be ok w/ him invading and conquering kuwait is horsehockey.

and the USA after having spent longer in iraq then in WWII has yet to see any of all this oil u neophytes keep chirping about. I guarentee u two things concerning the US gov't, oil and iraq. we will never, ever, ever see a profit from going to iraq for oil, and that was never our intention anyway.

how is it horsecrap? it's in just about every history book/website. here's one

http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar.html

"Amid growing tension between the two Persian Gulf neighbors, Saddam Hussein concluded that the United States and the rest of the outside world would not interfere to defend Kuwait."

the fact average americans haven't seen anything positive from iraq, ie. cheap oil, is because of the insurgency, not because the united states didn't want iraqi oil. do you still remember US soldiers securing the irqai oil ministry while allowing the museum and everything else to be looted? besides, who said the average americans were meant to see any benefit? halliburton has already filled up on billions, defense contractors made a killing on profits, bush has his father's attempted assasin in jail, and the oil companies swim in record money (they can't make this kind of moola with cheap oil).

the only "benefit" average americans have gotten is this. they thought they eliminated a WMD terror threat, that "benefit" lasted a couple of years for some people. now the "benefit" is that america liberated iraqis from saddam. this "benefit" is losing steam too, as 2/3 of americans now oppose the war, and thousands of iraqi civvies are killed every month. apparently though, some people still hold on to everything they can to justify the war. to each his own, instead of fantasizing about spreading freedom, i bought a hell of a lot of oil company stocks

 

[yavoon]

how is it horsecrap? it's in just about every history book/website. here's one

http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar.html

"Amid growing tension between the two Persian Gulf neighbors, Saddam Hussein concluded that the United States and the rest of the outside world would not interfere to defend Kuwait."

the fact average americans haven't seen anything positive from iraq, ie. cheap oil, is because of the insurgency, not because the united states didn't want iraqi oil. do you still remember US soldiers securing the irqai oil ministry while allowing the museum and everything else to be looted? besides, who said the average americans were meant to see any benefit? halliburton has already filled up on billions, defense contractors made a killing on profits, bush has his father's attempted assasin in jail, and the oil companies swim in record money (they can't make this kind of moola with cheap oil).

the only "benefit" average americans have gotten is this. they thought they eliminated a WMD terror threat, that "benefit" lasted a couple of years for some people. now the "benefit" is that america liberated iraqis from saddam. this "benefit" is losing steam too, as 2/3 of americans now oppose the war, and thousands of iraqi civvies are killed every month. apparently though, some people still hold on to everything they can to justify the war. to each his own, instead of fantasizing about spreading freedom, i bought a hell of a lot of oil company stocks

how does saddam hussein becoming under the dillusion mean that the US state department gave him the OK to invade?

the reason we tried to secure oil was because we had dillusions of trying to use oil to pay for iraq's reconstruction. which was mentioned many times by the president. as for claims of cronyism and other stuff, thats probably true, but someone had to rebuild iraq and whomever did it would make a profit. it would be insane to think we went to war to give a construction company a profit, so while unseemly its hardly something sinister.

u sound like a conspiracy theory person to me. did u know oil reserves around the world are at all time high? did u know that iran wants to lease 20 supertankers just to STORE oil. did u know the futures price for oil has been higher than today's price? this all means ppl are endeavoring in mass speculation on the market.

u really just need to learn more before u jump to these patchwork and haphazard conclusions. there was never any hope for the american gov't to make money off invading iraq, and ppl to assert otherwise is lunacy.