Jump to content

Kryskov

Members
  • Posts

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Kryskov
  • Alliance Name
    URP
  • Resource 1
    Aluminum
  • Resource 2
    Pigs

Kryskov's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. I'll have you know that there was a strong debate between me and the other URP members about it :P
  2. 1. I agree. But I do not see how that should exactly change anything, it is an addition, not an amendment, to my exampled point. second flaw- This doesn't exactly apply to our world's parameters, since there is no variation in quality of tech. People either get paid and sent the tech or don't send the tech and don't get paid. Main flaw- The usage of this relationship was exactly to show the flaws in La Marx's theory. I humored this relationship, though I agree with yours more. 2. Perhaps. I suppose no one can predict the future. I concede this point.
  3. I'd like to see some specifics instead of declaring a broad statement. I don't believe my theory is more flawed (all theories are flawed, by the way), considering most of my points have been brought up in the other thread and no one seemed to have a problem with them. Again, this thesis is just to hopefully shed some light on the immediate, radical change of economic standards, which would in general toss the world into a chaotic state, hurting both buyers and sellers.
  4. Interesting view of the world, Tywin. However, I believe that our given mechanics in this world force our current economic system. Given the theoretically infinite time new nations are given, there is little need to advance their progression, considering that in the current time it takes for a seller to become a buyer allows for a lot of experience to be gained and responsibility to be slowly and stably built.
  5. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "workers." However, I will assume it is the sellers. In my given situation, we must analyze the consequences of seller ownership. This example shows that higher paid, and therefore more equal, sellers end up in a WORSE position than they were in, having to exert more money and resources on their own tech, security, etc than if supported by an owner. This transition so early leaves the sellers in a weaker position than previously. Supporters of this seem to think that there should be a faster seller-to-buyer change rate, but that would only increase the instability of the world. I do appreciate the name-calling, though. It really tells a lot about the people who think this stuff'll work. Exactly, why force the prices? What's been given is fair for now, but I do suspect it will change overtime. However, radical overthrow will not end up in the utopian society people think it would. That's a really catchy name. However, I am not the one who is being "immoral" and forcing radical, unnecessary economic change or the collapse of fair, well-tested alliance structures. But you also appear to be reckless by your words "Better catastrophe than gerontocracy." If you are supposing that the gradual change of politics and economics is slow enough to necessitate reverting back to pre-industrial, or even pre-societal, structures, than you will simply just start the process over, taking even longer for these "Gerontocracies" to unravel themselves. 2. I do await your strategies, for what you have so far requested of the sellers is either impossible or ironically self-refuting. It would be difficult to organize a couple dozen of protesters, nevertheless the countless hundreds of other sellers. Even if you somehow managed to, this organization would, by nature, require some form of leadership. Even if you didn't plan on this, it would manifest a leader some way. And, in time, you would be gerontocrats anyway. 3. I do believe that you think that there seems to be a mass conspiracy among supposed "gerontocrats" to exploit the sellers, their main alliance base. There simply has to be a leader. Without a pre-established leader, individual structures would descend into chaos, and people would eventually flock to organization promising aid, tech, and money.
  6. Meh, it got me thinking. And its best to overkill it than let it grow.
  7. NOTE: The following essay does not necessarily represent the views of Promethia or any other members, or our allies, etc. and etc. In other words, these opinions are mine and mine alone. A Treatise on Society A Refutation of "The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics" and La Marxism Introduction On December 17, 2013, at approximately 2:34 PM EST, La Marx published "The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics." This piece declared two distinct socioeconomic classes: the "buyers" or "Gerontocrats," who La Marx argued exploited smaller nations for tech, and the "sellers" or "newbs," who were being exploited. La Marx reasoned that 6/100 or 6/200 tech deals were too advantageous towards the buyers, and that either: 1. The current social contract should be "modestly" upgraded to 12/100 or 18/100 deals, or 2. The sellers "develop a consciousness of themselves and begin to question the gerontocracies within their alliance." Presented with these ideas, it is within reason to debate and discuss these policies as the ever-changing global politics...change. Section 1: A Refutation of La Marxist Economics Under the policies of La Marx, the Gerontocrats would pay double or triple the original, traditional price of tech. The cost of buying 100 tech at a time is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million. This means that sellers retain around two-thirds of the six million if in a 6/100 deal or one-third if in a 6/200 deal. This means that, should tech deals become 12/100, sellers would keep nearly 83% of the money, and 89% if in an 18/100. This may increase the seller-to-buyer progression rate and throw off the ratio of sellers to buyers, especially considering that less and less nations are declaring independence on Bob. This is an unreasonable approach to economics. For comparison, consider this situation: two frycooks work at the same franchise, with each of their respective restaurants being owned by two very wealthy men. Now, one of the cooks is paid $20,000 a year and the other $70,000 a year. La Marx would have you believe that the richer cook is in a preferable situation, even though he is making the exact same quality of food at the same rate as the other. However, this is not the case. The richer cook's employer can no longer necessarily afford the same level of security, surveillance, and insurance that the other restaurant can. The richer cook's restaurant is broken into, supplies stolen, etc. This leaves the frycook in a position to have to pay for his own supplies, even taking over the restaurant if the owner can no longer afford it. And then, this leaves the cook in an even weaker position than the owner. Section 2: A Discussion on the Benefits of National Inequality With less and less nations appearing on Planet Bob, it has become beneficial, even necessary, for nations to be wealthier than others. Under La Marxist measures, the planet would oversee a lot of transitions to a buyer economy. With no base to support all the high-wealth nations, one alliance war could offset the balance of the world, and could potentially collapse the market, forcing everyone to go crazy for tech. With social inequality, all people get what they require. Buyers get tech and sellers get money. Section 3: On Gerontocracy In a way, it can be reasoned that the "tech deal" is a physical manifestation of the social contract between new nations and more developed nations. That being said, we must look at why government members are chosen. The statement "Alliance leaders are older than many" is true. However, La Marxist assertions that "Alliance leaders are chosen because of their age" is false. Though there is correlation between age and leadership, this is by no means signifying causation. It is often that the nations with the most experience are often found in leadership positions. Conduct, rules, and general leadership skills need to be developed in the meantime. It is questionable as to what La Marx prefers to see: an alliance led by experienced, committed players, or of new players? Because many nations, old and new, continue to enter into a social contract- both physical and intangible- with alliances nearly seven years old. In conclusion, the notion of a secret Gerontocratic society pulling strings is simply asinine and with little support. La Marx's ideas can only come to fruition should the sellers become disgruntled. I hope that I have proven that there is no reason for the sellers to be disgruntled, being one myself.
  8. P.S. Most of these are views of myself alone and may not be expressed by the Alliance.
  9. [quote name='Holy Empire of Halin' timestamp='1326152340' post='2896528'] Yet with the current path the TTE has taken, its very clear that your goal is to ZI him. Actions speak my friend. May I suggest that we put all this behind us? A peace offer to Eric would be a nice start. [/quote] Ok I admit that we are ZIing them, I did not know this and I apologize. [quote name='LordDarknessOfLight' timestamp='1326152741' post='2896534'] Anatolian.. That's uncalled for. Yes Eric, leave the alliance.. If your not happy, do so, but don't leave the game. The point is, you screwed up.. Big whoop. Now what is your next move? Don't leave CN because someone said so, this is a fun game. Some people take it so serious, its quite hilarious. Don't leave over something stupid. Really unnecessary Anatolian [/quote] I was suggesting two options. I never said "leave the game". I'm saying that he could leave and go somewhere else or leave the game if he was unhappy with it, like I believed he expressed. TO sum up: He needs to learn that the game is taken seriously. If he didn't know that, that's too bad. He had guides and plenty of experienced players to go to.
  10. The Hell? You wanted to raid, Eric. Why didn't you go somewhere that that's acceptable? TTE is a nice place where nations are secure from raids, but with that comes rules that you have violated. Our goal isn't to ZI you. No statement has ever been made expressing that we "want to ZI you" ever. We wanted you to uphold the rules and Charter, something that you saw unfair. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But please, do not accuse us of being misleading and targeting our government. You can leave the alliance OR the game.
  11. I've been working on a project for some time and I have decided that I and potentially some other friends are going to make an alliance. We still need more members. The prototype charter has plenty of government positions. Preferably looking for someone with at least 3 active months of experience and a moderately clean record. Also need an administrator to set up forums. Thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...