State property

[hossam]

theres just something i really need to know why does the state property civic give zero maintenance that just makes no sense?what is the logic behind it?
and another suggestion is that the slavery civic allows you to capture a percantage of defeated units and they become slaves

 

[Stalker0]

I think a more telling question would be "Why is America so rich whereas allies like the Philippines who have a similar and a sponsored and approved economic system poor?"

An even better question though is whether the Philippines would be richer under a different system?

No matter the economic system, a country's economy is based on a number of factors, one of the most important of which is resources. A country with a lot of resources is going to be richer than a country with few resources.

However, an economic system may help a country utilize those resources better than another.

Is the Philippines poorer than the US, Japan, Thailand, etc? I'm sure they are. But are they poorer than they would be under a state sponsored economy? I'm sure you would say yes, and I would say no

Capitalist systems proclaim that poor people within their system have a chance to "make it big," and for a small number of extraordinary people, this is true. By the same token, peasants in monarchial systems also have a chance to become king, and even caste system societies have occasional social movement up or down.

If you can find me a perfectly ordinary poor person in a capitalist system that became rich, and show that this is the norm, then I'll accept that capitalist systems truly provide for economic mobility.

In what monarchy can a peasant become king?

You wanted some examples of ordinary people, then sure no problem. I have two friends who both dropped out of school and now make 100,000 a year (they both work in sales). My cousin's father in law came to America as a poor immigrant (working as a janitor), got an education, and is now worth 20 million dollars.

So there's an example of middle class people becoming upper class, and a lower class person becoming upper class.

I do agree that most poor people in America can't become millionaires. However, if they have the ability to climb into middle class, and then their children gain the ability to move into upper class, the social mobility is there.

My father works in the marketing business, and I've had occasion to work for him for some projects. His share of the budget pie is rather large, and ultimately, all he does is combat the influence of competing companies. He doesn't produce goods, nor any service that will benefit his company's customers.

I'm familiar with all this corporate warfare because I've seen and worked with it firsthand. Can you say the same?

I will concede the point due to your experience that Companies spend a great deal of money in advertising and legality. The question still remains though, even with all of that money spent does the capitalist system still provide enough extra wealth that the extra competition cost doesn't matter?

Its basically the old adage of I may be spending 20% of my pie vs 10% of yours, but if my pie is twice as big as yours I don't mind spending the extra, I still have more pie.

For instance, the farming community in the US enjoys incredible amounts of government subsidy which allows them to sell their products on the international market at what would otherwise be a huge loss to them.

Something we can agree on, I do think that too much government intervention in the market can lead to these kinds of problems, hence the reason I like government intervention only to curb the problems with a completely free market.

Singapore makes a point of NOT supporting Singapore Airlines in any way, shape or form.

I'd like you to clarify this. If the state is not supporting the company in any way, then how is it a state company?

 

[Stalker0]

I think a more telling question would be "Why is America so rich whereas allies like the Philippines who have a similar and a sponsored and approved economic system poor?"

An even better question though is whether the Philippines would be richer under a different system?

No matter the economic system, a country's economy is based on a number of factors, one of the most important of which is resources. A country with a lot of resources is going to be richer than a country with few resources.

However, an economic system may help a country utilize those resources better than another.

Is the Philippines poorer than the US, Japan, Thailand, etc? I'm sure they are. But are they poorer than they would be under a state sponsored economy? I'm sure you would say yes, and I would say no

Capitalist systems proclaim that poor people within their system have a chance to "make it big," and for a small number of extraordinary people, this is true. By the same token, peasants in monarchial systems also have a chance to become king, and even caste system societies have occasional social movement up or down.

If you can find me a perfectly ordinary poor person in a capitalist system that became rich, and show that this is the norm, then I'll accept that capitalist systems truly provide for economic mobility.

In what monarchy can a peasant become king?

You wanted some examples of ordinary people, then sure no problem. I have two friends who both dropped out of school and now make 100,000 a year (they both work in sales). My cousin's father in law came to America as a poor immigrant (working as a janitor), got an education, and is now worth 20 million dollars.

So there's an example of middle class people becoming upper class, and a lower class person becoming upper class.

I do agree that most poor people in America can't become millionaires. However, if they have the ability to climb into middle class, and then their children gain the ability to move into upper class, the social mobility is there.

My father works in the marketing business, and I've had occasion to work for him for some projects. His share of the budget pie is rather large, and ultimately, all he does is combat the influence of competing companies. He doesn't produce goods, nor any service that will benefit his company's customers.

I'm familiar with all this corporate warfare because I've seen and worked with it firsthand. Can you say the same?

I will concede the point due to your experience that Companies spend a great deal of money in advertising and legality. The question still remains though, even with all of that money spent does the capitalist system still provide enough extra wealth that the extra competition cost doesn't matter?

Its basically the old adage of I may be spending 20% of my pie vs 10% of yours, but if my pie is twice as big as yours I don't mind spending the extra, I still have more pie.

For instance, the farming community in the US enjoys incredible amounts of government subsidy which allows them to sell their products on the international market at what would otherwise be a huge loss to them.

Something we can agree on, I do think that too much government intervention in the market can lead to these kinds of problems, hence the reason I like government intervention only to curb the problems with a completely free market.

Singapore makes a point of NOT supporting Singapore Airlines in any way, shape or form.

I'd like you to clarify this. If the state is not supporting the company in any way, then how is it a state company?

 

[Roxlimn]

Stalker0:

An even better question though is whether the Philippines would be richer under a different system?

No matter the economic system, a country's economy is based on a number of factors, one of the most important of which is resources. A country with a lot of resources is going to be richer than a country with few resources.

However, an economic system may help a country utilize those resources better than another.

Is the Philippines poorer than the US, Japan, Thailand, etc? I'm sure they are. But are they poorer than they would be under a state sponsored economy? I'm sure you would say yes, and I would say no.

You're wrong. I wouldn't say yes.

Economic system is not the only factor for making people and countries rich. The Philippines is rich in natural resources. Pound for pound, it's at least twice as rich as the US, and many times richer than Japan. That's the entire reason people kept fighting over it for so long!

This is a well known and documented fact. In truth, many foreign companies come to the Philippines for the express purpose of getting at those natural resources.

Free market didn't help here. I'm actually rather certain that it wouldn't have made a difference either way. The factors are not in the economic system. Free Market alone doesn't help to make you richer, nor does it help to foster innovation.

In what monarchy can a peasant become king?

Pretty much any peasant who successfully leads an uprising or marries into the royals and gets lucky through the succession can become king. This is true of most royalties.

You wanted some examples of ordinary people, then sure no problem. I have two friends who both dropped out of school and now make 100,000 a year (they both work in sales). My cousin's father in law came to America as a poor immigrant (working as a janitor), got an education, and is now worth 20 million dollars.

Dropping out of school doesn't make you poor. I think you need to get that out of your system.

Your cousin's father is not ordinary. The fact that you know this and take note of it is proof of it. Can ANYONE do so? Can YOU?

I do agree that most poor people in America can't become millionaires. However, if they have the ability to climb into middle class, and then their children gain the ability to move into upper class, the social mobility is there.

The social mobility is not at question in the first place.

I will concede the point due to your experience that Companies spend a great deal of money in advertising and legality. The question still remains though, even with all of that money spent does the capitalist system still provide enough extra wealth that the extra competition cost doesn't matter?

It's certainly better than the usual totalitarianist economic policies and their attendant inefficiencies. Even so, the point is, what is it being compared to? A Capitalist system is founded on the concept of capital being of use to the private individual as power - power to hire, power to declare profit, power to extract value. Does it provide anything extra?

It does not. It cannot. You can't make a worker work more just because you're a private individual. As long as you treat him the same, it doesn't matter if you're a private individual, or you work for the government. It's the treatment and motivation and organizational dynamics that make the difference.

A free market can hinder positive aspects of these just as much as it can encourage them.

Something we can agree on, I do think that too much government intervention in the market can lead to these kinds of problems, hence the reason I like government intervention only to curb the problems with a completely free market.

But that again is only an imaginary theoretical. The truth is, supposedly "free markets" are usually under close government supervision and manipulation through a variety of means, and governments use these hidden machinations to wage the same economic wars against other nations that have gone on since mercantilism was born.

Within their nations, factions and groups use free market slogans, propaganda, market manipulation, political lobbies, and other such means to wage their own wars, workers against capitalists, rich against poor. In a way, there's not really a lot of difference.

I'd like you to clarify this. If the state is not supporting the company in any way, then how is it a state company?

I believe that the state provided the seed capital for the company start-up. Other than that, it's just another state property. The state doesn't use its powers to prop the company up in any way, shape or form.

 

[Stalker0]

Dropping out of school doesn't make you poor. I think you need to get that out of your system.

Your cousin's father is not ordinary. The fact that you know this and take note of it is proof of it. Can ANYONE do so? Can YOU?

I never said dropping out made you poor. If you will reread my statement, I said they were middle class and become upper class. And if my cousin's father isn't ordinary than who is? The man had little education, was working a very ordinary job when he came to this country. What else do you want?

As to can anyone do so, no. Often times you have to work very hard to move up in a capitalist system, but the opportunity is there. Not everyone is willing to do that, and that's okay.

You can't make a worker work more just because you're a private individual. As long as you treat him the same, it doesn't matter if you're a private individual, or you work for the government. It's the treatment and motivation and organizational dynamics that make the difference.

As you say, its the motivation that makes the difference. Capitalist systems reward hard work, those who are willing to work beyond the basic terms of their employment. This encourages workers to work harder to achieve more. Socialist Economics deter this. People who work hard are penalized because much of their income is deferred to those who make less (and a large section of these people do work less). Why get a nice education and work hard if I can make nearly as much at an easier job?

I believe that the state provided the seed capital for the company start-up. Other than that, it's just another state property. The state doesn't use its powers to prop the company up in any way, shape or form.

So where do the profits of the company go, if there are any? And then who oversees the company?

 

[Withouthatred]

I think it's suppost to represent how an ideal communist system would work, same with free market. This is represented even better in bts. But for the record, by definition there has never been a communist based economic system.

 

[paintchip]

any one else like the civ 3 way of government? I vote to just use that .

 

[Roxlimn]

Stalker0:

As to can anyone do so, no. Often times you have to work very hard to move up in a capitalist system, but the opportunity is there. Not everyone is willing to do that, and that's okay.

I contest that. Homeless crackheads do NOT have an equal opportunity to become upper class citizens. One might even contest whether any real opportunity exists for them.

By the same argument, anyone has an opportunity to be king in a monarchy, except that only one person ever succeeds.

As you say, its the motivation that makes the difference. Capitalist systems reward hard work, those who are willing to work beyond the basic terms of their employment. This encourages workers to work harder to achieve more. Socialist Economics deter this. People who work hard are penalized because much of their income is deferred to those who make less (and a large section of these people do work less). Why get a nice education and work hard if I can make nearly as much at an easier job?

States owning property is not the same as socialized income and treatment.

Please, please, please, come to realize this.

So where do the profits of the company go, if there are any? And then who oversees the company?

The company is overseen by a CEO who reports to the government - the owner of the company. As far as I know, the profits largely go back into the venture, although some profit-taking is probably inevitable.

If you REALLY want to find out stuff about Singapore Airlines, why not contact them or search the web? I'm certainly not the foremost authority on that.

 

[civvver]

By definition one cannot go from poor to rich and be labeled ordinary- it's an oxymoron because as soon as someone goes from poor to rich we label him extraordinary.

Example: Consider Bill Gates and Michael Dell. Both college dropouts (well I heard Dell got booted for selling pcs out of his dorm room). Pretty ordinary. Now they're worth billions. And you wouldn't call the ordinary anymore.


I think the point that was trying to be made, and is a good one that needs to be made, people on social security in America, basically people below the poverty line so they receive government assistance, are living better lives than the average citizen of the vast majority of the world. Just because there's a huge gap between the ultra rich and the poor in America doesn't mean capitalism is evil. Can you even give me a reason why that gap is a problem? It's not really, rich people pay the vast majority of taxes and donate more money to charity than anyone else. If we were all middle class or poor, who would fund those things?


Point is, America was poor when it was founded. A bunch of struggling colonies. It became rich because its government gave people more freedom than any other country. It's not because of our abundant recourses or through exploiting the slaves and indians etc, that's foolishness. People in Africa have been enslaving each other for centuries and they are still poor. I am not in favor of an all out free market, everyone does whatever they want all the time kind of economy. But in general, the more freedom the better.

 

[generalawal]

Africa has massicve trade boundries. 5 states have over 200% tax rates, and it is very hard to do buisness in all of them. (see here:http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreEconomies/?economyid=2) There are only 7 countires in the world with free markets, and all are prosperous. Africa has been ruined by socialism and petty tribal/religious wars.

Africa has always been poor: its GDP has dropped by 6% since the Europeans left and they tried to institute collectivist policies.

Africa is like it is because of capitalism/imperialism (which has been around for at least, what, 500-600 years?), and continues to be like it is because of capitalism/neoimperialism.

Capitalism is entirely based on volentary transactions: thus no-one becomes worse off. Look how well Hong Kong has done: poverty to prosperity in 50 years.

Apparently you're not aware of things called 'coercion' and 'one-sided deals' and 'corruption.'

 

[Roxlimn]

civver:

I think the point that was trying to be made, and is a good one that needs to be made, people on social security in America, basically people below the poverty line so they receive government assistance, are living better lives than the average citizen of the vast majority of the world.

First of all, that's debatable.

Secondly, that's actually something that's against the policy of "free market," since by supplying "free goodies" to people who don't contribute, you're arguably blunting their desire for something better.

Just because there's a huge gap between the ultra rich and the poor in America doesn't mean capitalism is evil. Can you even give me a reason why that gap is a problem? It's not really, rich people pay the vast majority of taxes and donate more money to charity than anyone else. If we were all middle class or poor, who would fund those things?

I don't think anyone is saying that Capitalism is evil.

Point is, America was poor when it was founded. A bunch of struggling colonies. It became rich because its government gave people more freedom than any other country. It's not because of our abundant recourses or through exploiting the slaves and indians etc, that's foolishness.

Again, that's debatable. Demonstrably, many of the instances in which America profited enormously compared to other countries doesn't invoke free market economy. Particularly, the Mexican-American War by which America annexed much land wasn't a demonstration of free markets, nor was its role in World War 2, nor were its colonization efforts in the Pacific.

I think that it would be extremely difficult to show that the difference in economic freedom between the US and Britain is responsible for their differential influence in the world today.

 

[civvver]

civver:



First of all, that's debatable.

Secondly, that's actually something that's against the policy of "free market," since by supplying "free goodies" to people who don't contribute, you're arguably blunting their desire for something better.



I don't think anyone is saying that Capitalism is evil.



Again, that's debatable. Demonstrably, many of the instances in which America profited enormously compared to other countries doesn't invoke free market economy. Particularly, the Mexican-American War by which America annexed much land wasn't a demonstration of free markets, nor was its role in World War 2, nor were its colonization efforts in the Pacific.

I think that it would be extremely difficult to show that the difference in economic freedom between the US and Britain is responsible for their differential influence in the world today.

No, the first part is not debatable. Half the world today is starving. Anyone on social security in the usa is not starving. They have a very decent standard of living except when compared to the upper middle class and up of america.

Yes social security is essentially going against the fundamentals of capitalism but I don't believe in a utopian philosophical capitalism, I know it's not realistic or practical. Some social programs are good and needed, it's just when they become too wasteful that they are a problem, and they should be kept as minimal as possible.

Your other points are very valid, and while I'd still argue that the system in america is to credit for its success, other factors do come into play and I can see both sides. However I highly doubt that guys like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison and countless others would've made the great contributions they did if there was not a system in place that made them rich for their troubles.

 

[Roxlimn]

civver:

Half the world is starving? Like over 2 billion people? I'd like to see the sourcing for that statistic.

Even then, you would still have to substantiate that these people are "average" for "a vast majority of the world" whatever those phrases might mean.

Yes social security is essentially going against the fundamentals of capitalism but I don't believe in a utopian philosophical capitalism, I know it's not realistic or practical. Some social programs are good and needed, it's just when they become too wasteful that they are a problem, and they should be kept as minimal as possible.

Arguably, governing systems are a central necessity of any society. Taxes are a way to socialize costs of governance and security. Almost all nations have major provisions along those lines, even the US, arguably the most "free" of "free markets."

So no, "free market" is not a magical system that makes everyone somehow smarter and richer.

Your other points are very valid, and while I'd still argue that the system in America is to credit for its success, other factors do come into play and I can see both sides. However I highly doubt that guys like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison and countless others would've made the great contributions they did if there was not a system in place that made them rich for their troubles.

Why not? Albert Einstein didn't get particularly rich, but he still took the trouble. Oppenheimer also. And Schroedinger. In fact, most original software and hardware today, and the large majority of the inventors who make them, won't get rich from their efforts. Their employers will get the patents for their efforts and pay them the usual salaries, so it wouldn't much matter to them who that employer was so long as the system is meritocratic, and meritocracy has been around since antiquity, independent of free markets.

 

[Petros]

I would like to see game rules which suggest State Property for rather large and not-so-developed civs and Free Market for more developed (and perhaps not-so-huge) civs. It is like this in BTS, but still, State Property seems to be a better choice even for well-developed countries in many cases.

To handle this, as there were no stock exchanges under Communism, I'd like to see "Wall Street has no effect" under State Property (somewhat similarly, the Kremlin only works under Universal Suffrage).

And Environmentalism should be further improved so that it is actually worth it sometimes. Unfortunately, the +25% corporate maintainance costs makes it prohobitive as compared to the -25% of Free Market, even with the extra commerce from Forest Preserves and Windmills. Do you have any ideas to improve it?

 

[tucnymaster]

Maybe be an amount of gold each year to remove desert from your territory. That anti-desertification program would cost a huge amount of gold.