The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics

[jerdge]

[spoiler]

More seriously, in terms of mechanics there's a problem in your theory. Money is essential to nation building and the real mass of money is made at high infra levels, if and when one manages to stay there for long enough. The money one can make off selling tech is negligible compared to that, even if you sell at 90 millions for 100 tech. Simply put, even 54 millions every 10 days (which is the profit ceiling, not attainable, for "tech deals") is too little. Nations need to grow to get enough money to be competitive.
Just infra and money, though, is an unsustainable military weakness, as tech's military importance is decisive. Large nations must thus get a lot of tech to just survive in the violent environment we inhabit. Large quantities of tech must be purchased from low-tech nations, as the cost to get tech directly from the buy tech menu is too high. The good of this situation is that small nations can greatly speed up their growth thanks to the money they get in exchange for their tech.
The material conditions dictate that the price of tech must not be too low, otherwise alliances's low-NS ranges would be too slow at growing, but not too high, otherwise alliance's high-tech nations would be too slow at growing their tech, and the sellers' pool would quickly shrink, leaving everyone (the one that just switched to buyer included) with "no" tech.

I am not saying that your political ideal is impossible to obtain, anyway. You may convince all the small nations to get a lot of money for their tech. At that point they'll quickly grow their infra, then finding themselves in need of tech that can't really be bought anymore, or they'll remain small, never getting access to the "real" money-maker ranges. Anyone capable of uniting nations in a more effective cooperation could then get stronger and better nations, and leave you behind.

It may seem to you that 54 mil. in 10 days is "too little", considering your NS. You've probably been a large nation for too long to remember what is like to be at ~ 5000 infra with just 3 or 4 income wonders, but I can tell you that 50 mil. is just about the natural income such a nation would do in 10 days, without selling tech. If it's a tech seller, and makes its deals @ 9/100, then we're suddenly talking about roughly a doubling in that nation's income.
 
Let's get back for a little while to my suggestion of a nation building strategy that would focus not on buying infra, but rather on wonders. If that nation does all tech deals @ 6/100 (and after getting the FAC, @ 9/100), buying a new wonder (income or military) every 30 days or so becomes sustainable. Such a nation would have to take its time and not be in a hurry to grow its NS, but rather build a hidden (and deadly) strength, coming from its wonder assets, not its infra. Do you think it could be attacked by new nations, having no wonders, even if loaded with money by their upper tier (of a classical alliance)? Think again...
 
Taking a step forward, suppose there is a critical mass of such hypothetical nations grouped in an alliance (the "Syndicate"). Their political objective: to make all new & small nations (the "working class" if you like) aware of their rights to get fair prices for their tech, and turn them into expert tech sellers (if they join the Syndicate). In time, they would be able to make a significant difference bob-wide and change the face of the planet, IMO. They could even buy their protection (if needed) from some of the traditional alliances who acknowledge their demands, by being ready to make special tech deals (e.g. through 6:6 schemes) with them in times of need (and how does it sound to a big nation to have a reliable source of 500 or 600 tech in a flash?). Moreover, they would not have to ask their alliance members to stay as permanent tech sellers; any nation of the Syndicate would be free to turn into a tech buyer if it chooses so (either by leaving the alliance in good terms, or by staying in and slowly build up a tier of buyers).[/spoiler]

 

Sorry for replying to your post just after some time, but the festivities we are having in my nation distracted me from this thread, for a while.

My reasoning about 54 millions in 10 days being "too little" is not based on the size of my nation. (Incidentally, I remember very well how it is to have a small nation: in the GPA we are always knee-deep in nation building from scratch to economical powerhouse, because that's what we definitely do best... ;) )
54 millions in 10 days is "too little" compared to what any nation can get if they grow big enough. That's the entire point of my reasoning, which I fear you didn't follow, as you stopped at the first paragraph, omitting to address the rest of it.

Your wonder-heavy small NS nation is not a new idea either. Point is, an alliance which "properly*" builds its collective can dedicate a share of its ranks to the same build, with two advantages over your idea: 1) That the low-NS wonder-heavy nations don't have to ship tech away, but they just keep getting money every 10 days, thus being richer. 2) That (in case of war) the huge nations in that alliance can keep funding their low-NS nations long past the point where your formation has exhausted their treasuries.

Simply put, betting everything on low-NS individual nation development doesn't work in CN. We aren't stupid: if that was that good of an idea people would have implemented it years ago. :)

* Properly = with efficiency, i.e. by looking at both the sides of the coin and not at the Seller's only

[Lord Draculea]

Thanks for your well-argued answer.

 

I guess the central point of this topic (at least in my reading) revolves around the concept of "fairness". To be considered as "fair", the price of technology should maximize the utility of tech vs. money transfers both for the sellers and buyers. As we agree that the primary concern of most buyers (maybe with the exception of fresh ones) is not money, but rather the efficiency of their slot usage, it seems likely that the point of equilibrium should be reached at a $mil./tech rate of 6/100 (w/o the FAC), or 9/100 (w/ the FAC). (And btw, this logic also indicates why rates such as 12/100 or 18/100 couldn't be viable.)

 

O course there may be alternative (but similar in substance) methods of ensuring a fair and mutually beneficial interaction between the buyers and sellers, and no doubt there are many well-organized alliances running their own nation building programs (in times of peace) aimed at addressing their needs as a whole. Such programs should anyway enable a cash flow for the small nations similar to what they could achieve by tech dealing at fair rates (as above described). If that's the case, then "fairness" is ensured. Concerns should legitimately arise only in those case where unfair rates (for the sellers) are artificially maintained, typically by taking advantage of the sellers' lack of information and/or alternative trading options. And that's where the concept of an alliance of tech sellers (a "Syndicate") would become a plausible political construction.

 

Your wonder-heavy small NS nation is not a new idea either. Point is, an alliance which "properly*" builds its collective can dedicate a share of its ranks to the same build, with two advantages over your idea: 1) That the low-NS wonder-heavy nations don't have to ship tech away, but they just keep getting money every 10 days, thus being richer. 2) That (in case of war) the huge nations in that alliance can keep funding their low-NS nations long past the point where your formation has exhausted their treasuries.

 

Two arguments here:

1) usually, the low NS nations of a traditional alliance are eager to build up their NS, so it may be a bit difficult to find the needed number of wonder-heavy nations willing and able to take the job;

2) even if the needed number of nations within the targeted NS range could be found, you seem to overlook such possibilities as: a) the attacked alliance gets war help (without having to ship tech) from a protector; or b) that the attacking part gets itself countered by the protector, and a full-scale war emerges.

Being an alliance of low NS nations doesn't mean they should be dumb and not develop a wise & adequate foreign policy and system of treaties. :)

Edited December 29, 2013 by ovicos66

[jerdge]

Fair answer. I think that both sides have merit, TBH.

[Fox Fire]

I think the OP is demanding fair tech deals, and an end to the exploitation of tech dealers.

And I just explained why tech deals are fair and why there is no exploitation of tech sellers...

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.

Government type in your nation doesn't effect planet Bobs tech based economy.
Further more, [OOC]China is not Marxist. It never was. USSR, under Lenin was about as close to Marxism the world ever got. China took its own path with Maoism and while the worlds communist inspired regimes were close with USSR, USSR never had good relations with China. Mainly because of border disputes and disagreements over Communist philosophy.[OOC]


But back on topic here...
There is nothing wrong with the current system on planet Bob.
Increasing the price for tech would just cause problems. The tech prices are absolutely fair as is.
La Marxs problem here is simply that as a Marxist, he/she believes that simply being human entitles him/her to something. Further more, I think Marx believes the larger nations are somehow undeserving of all the money they fairly earned through long term growth.
Marx would prefer larger nations spread their wealth by paying a 100% increased rate for tech.
What La Marx doesn't seem to realise is where the point is that nations generally stop selling tech and start buying. Marx also doesn't seem to realise that by doubling the cost of tech, us small people would shoot into tech buyer range thinking the fast growth is so amazing because we just doubled our income.... Until we start buying tech ourselves and realize that the new 12/100 rate screws us over.

So Marxy. Im calling you out. If you're really serious about this, Ill expect you to be paying 12/100 rate once you start buying.
Anything less will make you a hypocrite.

[Jackie Moon]

La Marx, what you fail to understand, is that nations (and people) respond to incentives. Tech dealing, in its current form, is profitable for both the tech buyers, who get tech for much cheaper than they would if they bought it themselves, and for the tech sellers, who make a bunch of money because the tech they buy at that level is so cheap. Its as simple as that.

 

To illustrate the power of incentives, consider the proposal of 12 mil to the first nation who establishes "hostile relations" with La Marx. Would small nations refuse this offer on the basis of your stipulated "inherent rights," or would they decide that the benefits of the extra cash outweigh the cost of listening to you whine? 

[Malik Shabazz]

And I just explained why tech deals are fair and why there is no exploitation of tech sellers...

It all depends but in many cases, tech sellers get the short end of the stick in deals. They get stuck in crappy deals where the buyer gets like 200 levels of tech for 6 mil, and the seller barely gets any profit because he spends all of his money buying tech to sell to the buyer. I think this is what La Marx means and I agree that there should be some type of cap on tech deals. In my opinion, 6/100 is the most fair and equal deal and those should be the only types of deals that should be done. If it takes tech sellers unionizing, so be it.

 

It's kind of messed up how nobody is even giving La Marx's ideas a thought and just !@#$ting on him for no reason. Just because he's a "noob" doesn't mean what he's saying doesn't have any validity.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Loki Laufeyson

[Dochartaigh]

6/100 is pretty stupid. The reason is simple and others have already discussed it. Once the sellers become buyers, 36 million every other aid round would be a decent chunk of their money. Now imagine the added cost of not having tech sellers not send tech... This is a common occurrence as the sellers either forget, go inactive, or delete and now that seller just turned buyer is out 6 million or more each round until they find reliable sellers. 

 

Only then, those sellers shoot into the buyer range quickly and they are once more looking for reliable sellers. 

 

Now imagine this doing 12 million per 100 tech. The buyer would be stuck at low NS for a long while as they are now spending a lot of money continuously looking for reliable sellers. 

 

That union of sellers would most likely turn on your rather quickly once they become buyers and realize how ridiculously your plan was.

[Malik Shabazz]

6/100 is pretty stupid. The reason is simple and others have already discussed it. Once the sellers become buyers, 36 million every other aid round would be a decent chunk of their money. Now imagine the added cost of not having tech sellers not send tech... This is a common occurrence as the sellers either forget, go inactive, or delete and now that seller just turned buyer is out 6 million or more each round until they find reliable sellers. 

 

Only then, those sellers shoot into the buyer range quickly and they are once more looking for reliable sellers. 

 

Now imagine this doing 12 million per 100 tech. The buyer would be stuck at low NS for a long while as they are now spending a lot of money continuously looking for reliable sellers. 

 

That union of sellers would most likely turn on your rather quickly once they become buyers and realize how ridiculously your plan was.

How is it stupid? I don't think it was discussed in this thread, correct me if I'm wrong, and I would like to hear it. You get the amount of tech that you pay for, and the seller still has money left to improve his nation. The only people who benefit from 6/200 deals are the buyers.

 

I don't agree with the 12/100 part but I do agree that there need to be fairer tech deals.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Loki Laufeyson

[HM Solomon I]

How is it stupid? I don't think it was discussed in this thread, correct me if I'm wrong, and I would like to hear it. You get the amount of tech that you pay for, and the seller still has money left to improve his nation. The only people who benefit from 6/200 deals are the buyers.
 
I don't agree with the 12/100 part but I do agree that there need to be fairer tech deals.

6/200 is completely fair. It costs a little over $2m for 100 tech assuming an average nation set-up. Given this, in a 6/100 deal, buyers receive 100 tech and sellers receive close to $4m in profit, representing a 67% margin. In a 6/200 deal, buyers receive 200 tech and sellers receive around $2m in profit, representing a 33% margin. In a 6/300 deal, buyers receive 300 tech and sellers receive no profit. So 6/200 deals provide buyers with the most tech whilst still providing sellers with a solid profit margin. 6/100 is weighted heavily towards sellers since it provides more profit (twice as much as in a 6/200) to the seller at the expense of providing much less tech to the buyer (half as much as in a 6/200), and 6/300 is weighted heavily towards the buyer and is actually the most unfair as it provides nothing to one of the parties, as the seller is providing tech at cost. 6/200 strikes a balance between those two extremes, and balances the interests of both parties; that makes it the fairest of the three.

[Malik Shabazz]

6/200 is completely fair. It costs a little over $2m for 100 tech assuming an average nation set-up. Given this, in a 6/100 deal, buyers receive 100 tech and sellers receive close to $4m in profit, representing a 67% margin. In a 6/200 deal, buyers receive 200 tech and sellers receive around $2m in profit, representing a 33% margin. In a 6/300 deal, buyers receive 300 tech and sellers receive no profit. So 6/200 deals provide buyers with the most tech whilst still providing sellers with a solid profit margin. 6/100 is weighted heavily towards sellers since it provides more profit (twice as much as in a 6/200) to the seller at the expense of providing much less tech to the buyer (half as much as in a 6/200), and 6/300 is weighted heavily towards the buyer and is actually the most unfair as it provides nothing to one of the parties, as the seller is providing tech at cost. 6/200 strikes a balance between those two extremes, and balances the interests of both parties; that makes it the fairest of the three.

For a nation trying to buy infrastructure in bulk, 2 mil isn't going to do much.

[HM Solomon I]

For a nation trying to buy infrastructure in bulk, 2 mil isn't going to do much.

Except with 5 buyers that's an extra $10 million a month on top of the normal collection, and it costs less than that to buy the first 1k infra. It's also important to realize that fairness is about balance, you can't look at it from just one side.

[Dochartaigh]

How is it stupid? I don't think it was discussed in this thread, correct me if I'm wrong, and I would like to hear it. You get the amount of tech that you pay for, and the seller still has money left to improve his nation. The only people who benefit from 6/200 deals are the buyers.

 

I don't agree with the 12/100 part but I do agree that there need to be fairer tech deals.

 

The seller has money left over from a 6/200 deal as well. HM Solomon already addressed that. But you failed to address my statements regarding what will happen when these new sellers become buyers and the issues that they [i]will[/i] encounter.

[Malik Shabazz]

Except with 5 buyers that's an extra $10 million a month on top of the normal collection, and it costs less than that to buy the first 1k infra. It's also important to realize that fairness is about balance, you can't look at it from just one side.

What if you're in a situation where you can't find five buyers? Say everyone is in a war and is unable to buy tech, what then?

 

Then make it equal. Pay the amount of money for the tech you want, it's as simple as that.

 

 

The seller has money left over from a 6/200 deal as well. HM Solomon already addressed that. But you failed to address my statements regarding what will happen when these new sellers become buyers and the issues that they will encounter.

Because it has nothing to do with what I said.

[Mr Director]

The seller has money left over from a 6/200 deal as well. HM Solomon already addressed that. But you failed to address my statements regarding what will happen when these new sellers become buyers and the issues that they will encounter.

Currently 6/100s seems to be the usual rate, and the tech market hasn't imploded yet. The problem with 6/200s is that it takes up another aid slot without giving you more money. If one could send 200 tech per slot, there is a good chance that 6/200s would become the new normal.

[kalev1]

Why no body wants to look at this from this angle: how much would buyer need to pay for tech when he would need to buy it directly in-game and not from another player, take 1/4 of that price or 1/2  and you  get a fair price :lol1:  

With no change to game mechanics i don´t see a reason not to sell tech at 6mil for 200 or 100, or with FAC 9mil for 200 or 100 tech even 9mil for 300 tech would sound fair enough to me. I think the slot efficiency is the main reason for the current prices and it is a good reason.

Edited December 30, 2013 by kalev1

[La Marx]

Krashnaia is critiquing nothing. It's such a bad straw man that it's barely a straw man. It's more like a crop circle made by him or her in the field of my thesis accompanied by his or her elaborate conspiracy theory explaining the origins of this crop circle. Below I address his or her most salient errors.
 

As the price of tech is set by the use value of tech, and not his exchange value, low-tech nations get a huge surplus value for their tech.

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.
 

 

From a marxist point of view, if we are looking for exploitiation, the relevant question here is not how much money high-tech nations pay for the tech. The relevant question here is who keeps the surplus value of the tech: The workers who produced it, or the guy who owns the tech factory. As the cash goes directly to the Nation's treasury, it's up to YOU, the ruler of your nation, to determine if the surplus value will be redistributed among the workers, fetched by the oligarchy, or kept for your own personal amusement. It's, thus, up to you, the ruler, to determine whenever there will be exploitiation or not.

The problem with your analysis of surplus value here is that you treat the nation not as a worker, but as itself a composite of workers and owners. This is not how it is dealt with in my thesis. It doesn't address my reasons for dealing with political economy at the nation-to-nation rather than the inner-nation level. Again, you either haven't read my thesis, or you are avoiding its basic formulation.

The conception of workers and owners within the nation is pure idealism, a fantasy removed from the experience of the nation as constituted solely by the nation ruler whose 'population' is an ideological projection of the base planetary mechanics.
 

 

Regarding the relationship between nations, low-tech nations are not forced to engage in the trade, are not forced to stay as tech producers, and are paid way more for their tech than the production costs. 

 there is no systemic pressure either, as without tech-trading, the low-tech nation can still close that gap, albeit slowly.

Yes they are forced to engage in trade if they want to become Gerontocrats themselves, which is the central axis of Gerontocratic ideological reproduction of itself in its slaves. They are paid an amount far below use-value. 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.

Without tech trading. the low tech nation cannot close any gap. With it, it can't either. See my thesis on Gerontocracy next time before you attempt to critique it.
 

 

[La Marx]

 

A typical Alliance, I will use the NpO as an example, is ruled by:

 

a) An Emperor: Nobody votes for him, but we have procedures to remove the emperor... and they have been used in the past durng and emergency.

 

b) 4 Ministers (economics, military organization, foreign relations... abd internal organization of the Alliance). Thry are appointed by the Emperor.

 

c) 4 Deputy Ministers, one for each area. They are voted. It is NOT unusual to see new players getting votes and charges there... they have to work had in other areas and show that they have done a good job (i.e, asking ti be the Sargeant of a Branch of the Polar Army... working with[under] the ministers to keep up to date the war threads... helping with [read:working] organizing tech deals for other nations... helping to rebuild broken trade circles... or writting for the "Polar Press"... of becoming diplomat for another Alliance).[Read:young nations are treated like slaves - n.b. completely consistent with my thesis.]

[etc.]

There is a hierarchy... which has NOTHING to do with money or tech.

The problem with this is that you outline a visible political formation built on a material formation and then claim that this has no connection with the Gerontocratic accumulation of material resources, and then go on to show (ironically?) the pyramidal structure of your own alliance. Well done.

Yes of course it is a banal fact that there are old nations with no politically declared connection to the political formation that Gerontocracy takes - democratic, imperial, oligarchic etc. - that does not negate Gerontocracy, it proves the rule, in the refined sense of the word. Furthermore, their non-engagement in any executive, administrative, electoral capacity and so on is itself a political role within the Gerontocratic system. The quiet material base. If they participate in trade circles, tech trading, wars, and so on, the base material mechanics of the game, as most older nations do within alliances pace GPA et. al., then they are involved in a political system. The equation of politics with a few 'positions' is itself a product of the depoliticisation of the world by the Gerontocracy system.
 

 

2) Having lots of money makes you influential

 

False:

a) Being involved with politics makes you influential....

On the other hand, being experienced may make a BIG difference. To be experienced you have to work. If you do it fine, you can be a deputy minister after, say, 2 months.

 

b) The Emperor of the Order never needed a "Big" nation to be the Emperor... The NpO has several good examples:

Ivan Moldavi: founder of not one, but three big Alliances (NPO, NpO, NSO)... his own nation has always been quite small... and I do remember he spent a long time in bill lock some time ago.

 

RandomInterrupt: another former Emperor of the NpO... his nation: 982.03 infraestructure. 8 technology. 0 national wonders. His nation was mostly like that when he was the Emperor.

 

I have 4,474.70 infra, 3,894.67 tech and ALL the possible wonders. This may mean that I am more influential than Random... well, no, that's not the case.

 

My thesis is an analysis of political and economic structures, not a prediction of which agents in those structures will become 'influential'. As I have already demonstrated, the agents who gain influence do so by their total conformity to the ideological practices of Gerontocracy. They themselves don't exercise 'influence', they exercise the power and authority of the system in their person as an empty category. The provincial history lesson you are serving me - with a strange if not symptomatic fanaticism - is irrelevant, but telling.
 

 

3) Having lots of money, infra and tech makes you more powerful

 

False... even from a military point of view. You need a warchest, of course.... but you fight with nations in your range during wars.

 

That's also FALSE for Alliances as a whole... CN works in blocks of Alliances.... so your power or lack of power depends a bit on the size of your Alliance, but it's by far more dependant of who are your Allies and how good you are negotiationg.

Of course it does - but at a structural level. Your problem is that you interpreted my thesis at an individual level, and localising it there you tried to test its predictiveness of certain things like 'influence of a nation' and then tested that against history. That is, as far as this thread goes, the gross error du jour.
 

 

4) Nobody helps the little and new nations

 

False... nobody receives MORE help than the small nations during wars.

 

And during times of peace, there's always programs to give them FREE money to help them buy wonders (at least it's like that in the NpO, but we are not the exception).

 

Having a big nation myself... I never received "free tech"... but the small nations receive "free money" quite often.

 

I never said "nobody helps new nations." This is the problem with a strategy of mendacious paraphrase.

There is no such thing as free anything within the major Gerontocratic alliances - like NpO, for example. That money is provided on the basis of an implied contract of servitude to the Gerontocratic structure of alliances. It is possible to send people money gratis or pro bono publico. That possibility is rarely exercised. I am for it in the case of young nations, the very same whom Gerontocrats enlist in the gulag of their aa ministries to work and slave away for the coveted status of 'deputy minister' and so on. Whooptydoo.

 

[BrJLa]

LaMarx has spent a lot of time dismissing arguments as not really addressing his thesis, but you have to go pretty far back to see what his thesis even is.  And I think a lot of this thread is people tilting at windmills, because they’re arguing about what they imagine he’s saying.  And LaMarx is able to bat these arguments away because they have nothing to do with the core of his argument.

 

His main thesis seems to be “Tech sellers must demand their full democratic rights to set whatever price they deem acceptable.”  [“Democratic” seems like an odd word choice – there’s nothing inherently democratic about Bob.  “Inalienable” might have been a better word choice.]

 

One of his premises seems to be that if someone asked a price of, say, 12/100 for tech, they’d be subject to some kind of repression beyond simply not being able to find a buyer.

 

He also appears to believe that lower tiers are sacrificed, humiliated and exploited by the cycle of wars on Bob, and that if paying more for tech reduces  your ability to stay militarily competitive, you should opt out of warring and go neutral.

 

His thesis, therefore, doesn’t have anything to do with supply and demand, collective interests, or the real value of tech - which is what everyone seems to want to argue about.  But beyond that, he seems to have said more about what his thesis isn’t than what it is, and I’m struggling to paraphrase what his point really is.

[Mr Director]

Without tech trading. the low tech nation cannot close any gap. With it, it can't either. See my thesis on Gerontocracy next time before you attempt to critique it.
 

 

A small nation can close the gap if it spends its money right. One of the big reasons the tech trade exists is because new nations can close the gap with larger nations. Else it would have stopped existing a long time ago. Is it easy to close the gap? No. Can it be done? Yes. Has it been done? Just take a look around.

 

 

 

There is no such thing as free anything within the major Gerontocratic alliances - like NpO, for example. That money is provided on the basis of an implied contract of servitude to the Gerontocratic structure of alliances. It is possible to send people money gratis or pro bono publico. That possibility is rarely exercised. I am for it in the case of young nations, the very same whom Gerontocrats enlist in the gulag of their aa ministries to work and slave away for the coveted status of 'deputy minister' and so on. Whooptydoo.

 

 

There is no such thing as free anything anywhere. There is no reason to give smaller nations free money if you aren't going to get anything back. All you will be doing is wasting resources and aid slots, and making yourself look bad.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Mr Director

[HM Solomon I]

LaMarx has spent a lot of time dismissing arguments as not really addressing his thesis, but you have to go pretty far back to see what his thesis even is.  And I think a lot of this thread is people tilting at windmills, because theyre arguing about what they imagine hes saying.  And LaMarx is able to bat these arguments away because they have nothing to do with the core of his argument.
 
His main thesis seems to be Tech sellers must demand their full democratic rights to set whatever price they deem acceptable.  [Democratic seems like an odd word choice theres nothing inherently democratic about Bob.  Inalienable might have been a better word choice.]
 
One of his premises seems to be that if someone asked a price of, say, 12/100 for tech, theyd be subject to some kind of repression beyond simply not being able to find a buyer.
 
He also appears to believe that lower tiers are sacrificed, humiliated and exploited by the cycle of wars on Bob, and that if paying more for tech reduces  your ability to stay militarily competitive, you should opt out of warring and go neutral.
 
His thesis, therefore, doesnt have anything to do with supply and demand, collective interests, or the real value of tech - which is what everyone seems to want to argue about.  But beyond that, he seems to have said more about what his thesis isnt than what it is, and Im struggling to paraphrase what his point really is.

Most of the arguments made against his have been on point. Supply and demand enters the equation because sellers can demand whatever they want, as can buyers, but only together can they set a price, and most of the arguments here have involved supply and demand on some level. Looking at the situation from only one perspective gives an incomplete picture and thus a flawed argument.

And no, a seller that asks for 12/100 would not be punished other than not making any money from tech dealing. And if they find themselves in an alliance that mandates a price and punishes those that attempt to sell at a different rate (and I'm not myself aware of any that do), they can leave and go to any other alliance that doesn't do this or they can strike it out on their own. They have complete freedom to do what they want; that there are natural consequences for doing what they want is not the same as oppression.

I'm in my 4th 3-month term as head of my alliance's commerce and econ, and while we operate a (voluntary) centralized tech dealing program with a fixed rate, free-market deals (with the rate negotiated privately among the parties) are practiced regularly and have traditionally been the norm. As long as all parties agree, they can buy and sell at any rate they want, with the alliance only becoming involved in (rare) cases of fraud.

At the end of your comment, you point out another problem with La Marx's argument: he says a lot without really saying much of anything at all. He uses big words and dense language to disguise the fact that he doesn't really understand this world and is just trying to be relevant by spouting a bunch of nonsense. (It is nonsense because it ignores the realities of this world.)

[Krashnaia]

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]

Edited December 31, 2013 by Krashnaia