Krashnaia
-
Posts
652 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Krashnaia
-
-
Wait, weren't IRON and XX among the loudest voices insisting DH needed to go down in the run up to the last war? And wasn't it XX who disregarded our coalition's plans and forced our allies to come in on the opposite side?
No, it was NPO who screwed up everyone else so that their allies on the other side would get an easy ride. Then you attempted to frame XX for the fiasco but, as the current events show, no one bought your bullshit.
-
Therefore, if we follow that thought process through, there are currently alliances in Polardoxia that are working to impose reps (either directly or by refusing to peace out in protest) and cripple a sphere that would be their only chance of surviving when their current friends turn on them.
Problem with your logic is, NPO proved in eQ that they are unreliable to work with. Therefore, no one in the current winning coalition wants to work with them in the future.
You pretend to convince us that NPO will come to the rescue of the weak and abused? As her past record proves, in such an event they will sit out or side with the stronger side. If I'm the stronger I don't need them, and if I'm the weaker I don't want them joining the dogpile.
-
Yeah, learn what you're talking about and then come back please.
Looks like something you should get used to do
-
From the logs I have seen, Farrin is being pretty gracious and even offering up tech in addition to the peace mode terms.
That makes sense. Save a few Peace Mode days for NPO's hippie high tier, at the expense of having the low tier (who have been fighting for three months) pay tech reps.
Par for the course for Pacifica.
-
So why the double standard? If NoR's hiding in PM clearly they have to have punitive terms placed on them as well by your logic. Hypocrisy at it's best!
Good idea. Let's get coherent and apply the terms to NoR, too.
NPO, always caring for the well-being of her coalition mates.
-
Edit: The best part of all this is that people apparently forget what happened last time Umbrella\GOONS\TOP took NPO out of play through terms.
Last time Umbrella\GOONS\TOP took NPO out of play through terms, they got NPO fighting for DH in the next two global wars.
So, if I've understood correctly, your line basically breaks down to:
"Don't allow ex-DH to enforce terms on us, because you'll be next and we will help them. And by the time you manage to build a coalition strong enough to beat them, we'll backpedal in middle of the war and allow them to escape."
Not the most brilliant position to hold, but be my guest.
-
Go on, NPO. Continue letting your allies burn for the well-being of your tops tiers who remain safely in Peace Mode.
And, BTW, the concept of "Banking Nations" who must remain in PM during a war to give reconstruction aid post-war, has been outdated for a while ago. With the amount of warchest the high-tier nations have, any self-respecting high-tier naton can get involved, rebuild and give aid, all at the same time. -
About time
Congrats everyone for Peace.
-
And, the news are? I mean, nothing new coming from Umbrella. :P
-
Hail our new overlords
o/ MI6
-
Welcome, CCC! Give them hell.
-
Well, last Global War was way, way shorter than most of the people around here wanted it to be. So it makes sense that the current war lags way, way longer than the average Global War.
I also think that reps are retarded, and in this case, that reps aimed at discouraging the use of Peace Mode are double retarded. Because Peace Mode provides over 50% of all the debate during any Global War. Without it, what would we be arging about? The OWF would surely die.
-
How to save CN:
1) Hire a graphic designer
2) Publicit your game, if only a little
-
I would maintain that the idea that tech-dealing is not an owner-worker (employer/employee) situation buys into the Gerontocratic mystification of its processes of capital/tech accumulation.
Except that, in order to be a employer/employee situation, the "Employer" would need to have possesion of the means of production, which in a tech-deal remains fully in control of the seller. The "Employer" would also need to purchase just the workforce of the Seller to produce a merchandise that the Employer will later comercialize in order to obtain capital. Instead of purchasing a full, finished product for his own private use.
Remember: A capitalist invest capital to purchase means of production and labour in order to produce merchandise that is comercialized to obtain more capital.
In a tech deal, the objective of the buyer is not to produce more capital, but to purchase a commodity for himself, which the seller produces more efficiently.
You can twist marxist terminology as much as you wish, but that will not make your thesis any less ridiculous from a marxist point of view.
you will note that in substance I advocate toward a war of all young nations against all older nations, a war to kill Gerontocracy dead, which will necessarily be fought on a new terrain of struggle - the economic zone of struggle. The revolutionary obstruction of the major Gerontocratic powers from their exploitative and rapacious tech accumulation and 'tech arms race' as you aptly put it is the historical destiny of the Initiate.
Whatever. As it has been already proven, the tech-deals are not exploitiative, and they don't damage the sellers in any way, so they can't be categorized as "rapacious".
Also, notice that for young nations to ever get close to the amount of tech possesed by high-tier nations, they'll have to become tech-buyers themselves. Otherwise, they'll never have enough NS to be allowed to attack the "gerontocracy" by the game mechanics, and thus will be unable to deposses the "gerontocracy" from it's accumulation of tech.
-
Tech deals are a matter of slots and not money.
This, When we see a 6kk/100 deal, we read "1 slot of money for 1 slot of tech", not "6 million money for 100 tech".
Given the amount of money a high-tier nation collects a day, they wouldn't mind to pay 12, 20 or even 50 million per 100 tech. The problem is the limit of slots, and the limit of money that can be sent per slot. The only realistic way to increase the price of tech, would be to increase the maximum amount of money you can send in a FA, without increasing also the maximum amount of tech.
Another interesting fact is that, if the price of tech increases, it wouldn't hurt the high tier nations, who can afford any rate because they have nothing better to do with the money. It would hurt the mid tier nations, who still need the money to purchase infra, build wonders, and save warchest. And, as a matter of fact, most of the goverment and active members in any alliance are mid tier nations.
But the real irony here is that, the higher the price of the tech, the longer it will take for a tech-seller to reach the level at which selling tech is no longer rentable and he becomes a buyer. I mean, if the price of tech raised to, say, 100 million for 100 tech, I'd consider becoming a seller myself, and I'm 2,788 days old.
-
(double post)
-
And how would we classify intra-alliance tech sellers?
Mmmmh... alliance goverments regulate and promote tech deals, imposing limitations and restrictions to foreign trade.
My classification would, thus, be:
Planned Economy + Protectionism.
So we're not even e-lawyering anymore, we're actually RPing corporate HR? Just when you think the OWF has jumped the shark to its maximum extent...
Ok, if you want me to roleplay corporate human resources, I'll rolepay corporate human resources:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Powers
I've summoned you to my office in order to discuss some sensitive issues regarding your employment contract...
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]
That's all.
Have a nice day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS:
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]
-
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.
Ok, since you asked nicely...
1) Your section 1 is false as your only argumentation to support your idea is a weak example about overpaying cooks.
The first flaw in that example is that no employer overpays his employees, not because otherwise they would have no money for surveillance, but because it would cut into their profits. Employers do not employ people because they are so nice persons, they employ people to get a return from their investment. They aren't going to pay 70k if they can get the same job done for 20k, and get 50k extra for cars, women, beer and other vices.
The second flaw in the example is that very often, paying your employees better gets a better return. Specially if they are qualified personnel. A good cook will expect to be paid more than a bad cook, because a good cook will attract more customers to your restaurant and thus increase profits.
But the real, basic flaw in the example is that you have accepted La Marx false premise, in the sense that Tech-Dealing equals an employer-employee relationship and not what it really is, a retailer-customer one.
The best shot at La Marx in that regard, would be to point that La Marx argues that the current 6kk/100-200 tech deals are exploitative because high-tech nations purchase for 6kk what would cost them over 50 million bucks. However, his revolutionary proposal is to increase the price from 6kk to 12kk-18kk. Wait, what? So, paying 6kk for what is worth 50kk is exploitiation, but paying 18kk for what is worht 50kk is not? come on.
If tech-dealing would really be an exploitation practice, then the answer would be do not sell tech. However, La Marx proposal reveals his true nature: he is not a revolutionary seeking to emancipate the oppressed masses. He is just a shop owner attempting to manipulate the market in order to artificially raise the price.
2) Section 2 point is not valid. High-tech nations only need sellers because they need to keep pace with other high-tech nations who are purchasing tech from sellers. Tech-dealing has provoked an "arms race" between the high-tech nations. If there were no tech-sellers, then high tech nations would have no need for them as no one would be exponentially increasing their tech (and thus, war damage) thanks to them. Inequality among nations provides, thus, no benefit.
3) Section 3 is fully valid. I'm, and have never been, an alliance leader, yet almost always have way more NS than the leaders and officials of whatever alliance I'm in.
-
Congratulations to all winners!
-
La Marx's thesis is flawed, but congratulations for being able to come with a theory even more flawed than his.
-
As I have already demonstrated, the price of tech is not set by its use value - you don't seem to have read my comments on this, or you are directly avoiding addressing it.
Yes, I've took the time to read your thesist. And your theoretical basis fails exactly here:
The Exploitaton of Tech Sellers: Systemic Inequality and its perpetual reproduction through tech deals.
Young nations under this political structure offer their low tech levels to older nations at prices which are determined by their political domination under World Gerontocracy. At 6/200 or 6/100, nations sell their technology and receive a small return - effectively, a wage that allows for growth that can never effectively compete with the gerontocratic elite. In this wage is inscribed the basic political and economic coordinates of domination and inequality at the heart of World Gerontocracy. It is true that majority are not conscious of their exploitation in this transaction or how the market of technology reproduces the gerontocratic political structures. The surplus value extracted from young technology sellers can be enormous. Older nations pay 6million for what can cost them as much as 60million to 120million (and much more), so that the surplus value extracted from younger nations can be as little as 54 million (and on into the hundreds of millions, if not billions).
From the massive harvesting of surplus value from younger nations the Gerontocracy only increases its hegemony over all political structures. And descendng on these political structures is the rigidity of death.Your theory is false, as it stands over the false premise that the socially necessary labour time to produce tech is set by the nation least efficient at producing it. Instead of being set by the nation most efficient at producing it. This is basic marxism.Let's suppose I want a car. If I build it myself, it will take me, say, one year. As I'd have to quit my job, assuming my annual salary is, say, $50K, then the car would cost me $50k (plus materials).Now, if I purchase the car from a car company, which builds hundreds a day, it'll cost me, say, $6,000.According yo your theory, by purchasing a car for $6,000, I'd be exploiting the car company by extracting $44,000 in surplus value from it.
That's, of course, absurd. The truth is that the car company has produced $6,000 in wealth. The surplus value is NOT stablished as the difference between how much would have cost the customer to produce the item, and how much has he paid for it. The surplus value is stablished by the formula: ($6,000 minus production costs, minus wages).
Thus, surplus value in tech dealing is stablished by the difference between what the buyer has paid for the tech, and what the seller paid for it's production. It's up to the seller to decide how he redistributes the surplus: return it to the workers, invest in their well-being, or keeping it for himself and his close pals.
Yes they are forced to engage in trade if they want to become Gerontocrats themselves
No one is required to become tech-seller in order to survive in Bob. No one will attack you for not selling tech. And you will still be able to progress. I have never been a tech-seller myself.
But, in any case, your point is that in order to become an exploiter, you have to become an exploitee first? Ok, then the socialist answer is not becoming an exploiter, and thus not being an exploitee. You have a third option, don't trade and develope your nation on your own terms. An option you can freely chose as there are no infrastructural or superstructural pressure to fight against.
The high tech nations pays in advance a wage for the tech, an exploitative wage See my thesis which you don't seem to have read very closely or at all. Direct quotations are a good start.
.
And here we have another falacy.
The exploitiation circle is: The exploiter purchases labor with his capital, labour produces merchandise and the merchandise is sold to produce more capital for the exploiter.
However, in tech dealing, the customer isn't purchasing labour to produce merchandise to produce capital. He is purchasing a commodity which doesn't produces any money for him (as he doesn't resells it, neither tech produces money beyond a certain, relatively low level - in which you tend to be still a seller). And the fact that tech-sellers get more money from selling their tech instead of keeping it themselves, should light a bubble in your head.
Why do high level nations purchase tech, then? To wage war to other high level nations. The higher your tech, the more damage you do in war.
So, a low tech nation:
1) Gets a huge monetary benefit for "selling" what actually costs it nothing
2) Losses nothing as the tech will be used to damage nations whose NS is too high to be able to hit him
3) Actually helps closing the gap faster as, the more damage the so-called "gerontocrats" inflict one on another, the more infra, tech and money they are throwing to the dustbin.
So, in conclusion, a tech seller is getting money to develope faster, in exchange of helping people way out of his NS range destroy each other more efficiently. Who is really the exploiter here? (if any).
PD:
[OOC] this is an IC forum. We are supposed to be real leaders of real nations in a real world here [OOC]
-
Awww, isn't it adorable?
I'd answer that it's your current overlords who should muzzle you. But I've realized no one makes muzzles for your small size. After all, the point of having a yapping dog is to laugh at it when he gets noisy.
Have a cookie:
Now sit.
Good puppy.
-
So china is communist? Can all the commies that know it's basic principles stand behind this? I highly doubt it, for they debate about this all the time... Frankly, china's policies, especially in econ, is more influenced by tariff and nationalistic policy that not need be communist at all. Works by F. List or Alexander Hamilton for example. Frankly you guys remind me of free marketeers, ask where in hell have they've seen a free market system around the world, and you'll have people debate for years on such a simple question
Edit:damn you, you editor!!!!Actually, you have been the one who has debated if something is communist or not, not me. I'm not the kind of guy who dodges the question by saying that "communism has never really been applied".
Anyway, my point is that the chinese does take marxism into account in their economic policies, and it works far better than the western economists who have spent the last century writting bullshit to neglect marxism (going so far as to even set up a fake nobel prize to glorify the best charlatans).
-
PS: Marxism doesn't work in CN. You can RP as a Marxist all you want, but it fails in RL already. So now you want it to fail on paper pixels too?
Last time I checked, "communism" is one of the preferred forms of government during wartime on planet bob.
And marxism fails so much in RL, that the chinese are now the ones pulling the strings, while the west has gone broke following the advice of charlatans who denied marxist economic analysis. While Marx did not discover it all (would speak poorly of our civilization if we hadn't advanced a bit in more than a century since his death), neglecting the importance of dialectical materialism in social sciences in favour of idealism (like all western economic schools do), is like neglecting newtonian physics in favour of aristotelian ones.
A Message from the Emperor of the New Pacific Order
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted · Edited by Krashnaia
I can't recall one single Global War in which any relevant alliance from the winning coalition changed sides in middle of the war.
Oh, wait, NPO in eQ. Good that they are on the other side this time.
And, all of a sudden, keeping under check the guys who were overtly planning an agressive war against you to cover their own faults, turns you into someone plotting aggresive wars yourself.
Nordreich, of course. Where else?