EVE General Discussion

This whole spiel assumes the false dichotomy that the only alternative to absolute capitalism is absolute socialism. Also, near the end, it also arrogantly assumes what my idea of equitable distribution is, and that I'm not putting history in context. Thing is, we've learned from history that absolute socialism doesn't work. What we're learning from the present, though, is what is relevant here, that absolute capitalism also doesn't work.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but there is such a thing as an optimal middle ground. You don't have to be a Soviet Union to reduce poverty. As I said earlier, there's nothing wrong with a little capitalism, and there's nothing wrong with mixing in a little socialism. You have to find a rational middle-ground to balance the two out.

Like when? Because like with this alt, there wasn't a default...I freely chose Minmatar (rebel of all rebels).

Game starts with 4 factions to chose from, none were default.

That's extremism there, absolute anything is the crazy stuff.

Things like Ayn Rand's Anarcho-Capitalism for example.

It's not a false dichotomy. You have no historical example of a middle ground being successfully maintained in the face of international (or even national) pressure. The United States, which tried really hard to be a proper middle ground, that maintained individual and economic freedom, has now become primarily socialist, and extremely polarized between the remaining elements of capitalism within the nation.

But the results are already in. Companies flee to foreign shores in droves as the years go by, to avoid socialist taxation policies. The scales don't stay balanced.



Yes. The vast majority of family owned farms are. They save on shipping costs as a result.



Yes, they have. And they are right to do so, especially considering they hire unskilled workers. Unions, in the extent that they deserve to exist and are not simply enforcing a monopoly of their own (many of them are hypocrites using the law to gouge their employers), consist of workers skilled in a particular trade. You need no skill to stock shelves, no skill to smile and wave at the cart station, and no skill to operate a register. They are paid accordingly. Particularly given how easily unskilled labor can be replaced.


I wrote a dissertation on AT&T. The government made the wrong move in the Telecommunications Act. They broke up one large, relatively non malevolent monopoly, and instead created 20+ regionally based, small, highly malevolent monopolies, who fought amongst one another until we yet again have very few significant choices (that being, they're all the same more or less). Except that to get there, each of those companies has cut throats and gouged their customers until they have highly unethical and suspect business practices.

This is compounded by the fact that the government basically gave them the legal rights to the communications backbone of AT&T. The new companies didn't build it, didn't earn it, and have no respect for what it took to get there. They are all literally ten year olds that inherited their parents fortunes.

I know of no American adult who hasn't been screwed in some way by a phone company. So I'd give that one a big thumbs down, from hindsight.

[Edit:



Then, by definition, it was not an intership. It would more properly be referred to as an apprenticeship.

I was being a smartass about the YouTube thing. I plan on checking it out when I get home. My phone's browser hates YouTube with a passion for some reason.

So let me get this straight: your problem with the US originally stems from not getting a paid internship? Seriously?

No, there are plenty of historical examples. It's just that none of them managed to maintain a middle ground. England attempted it, but fell headlong into total capitalism and corporate control, child labor and the like, Oliver Twist, "Boy for sale" and all that.

France, during their Revolution, attempted this, but became nearly entirely socialist instead.


I shall, one day, and woe betide those who fall in my shadow! Anyway, with all seriousness, you guys are at least seemingly starting to climb of the socialist dumpster, given recent political events. The U.S. will soon follow, but given our history it's likely our transition will be much bloodier.



What stupidity, precisely? Missing your context for that.

Anyway, yes, historical examples of success of a policy, would be a good way to start off asking for change. Or at least, lack of historical examples of failure of such a thing. As opposed to spinning up national level policy out of whole cloth, or pretending history doesn't exist. Those who fail to learn from history...

So, the result is, that you can't objectively tell me how a middle ground society turns out, because one has never managed to keep itself in existence for long enough for the effects of such things to be measured.

Actually I'm surprised you're not complaining about the real world, we're all born in much the same way, but we're not all born equal where advantages are concerned.

GW2 uses gems in much the same way as PLEX, except GW2 doesn't have subscriptions. A company can make a lot of money by offering such a service as well as reducing the amount that RMTers can make. Wouldn't be surprised if that service became available in other games in the future.

Surprises me how some people keep going on about fair yet they neglect to consider the equipment and services that they use to play the game. That equipment and even the services are not the same for everyone so there's already an imbalance where advantages are concerned as soon as you start playing the game.





Well the guy shouldn't have gone offline and he wouldn't have missed the deal. I could play for 16 hours everyday if I wanted to, so that gives me an advantage over those that can't, which is unfair to those that can't. Would you like to suggest that we are limited to playing say for 2 hours per day in the interest of fairness?

I would argue that a game of chess is not really fair, as the equipment being used is not equal. But that is what can make it challenging.

Fair enough points at the beginning. I have seen many examples myself of companies doing such things, and I tend to agree that it's unethical to milk free labor only to do a 180 once hiring time comes about.

Oh, as for the homeless, I have one word for you: sucker. Yes, there are quite a few legitimately homeless and destitute people here, just like anywhere else. However, after witnessing a fair few of them slip into a back alley and drive away in a car far more expensive than my own after "shift change", I find it hard to figure out who to feel bad for and who to applaud for taking advantage of people such as yourself who just want to help them. They are a shining example of capitalism at it's finest. They are the Jita scammers of the real world.

Most of the homeless are mentally ill, and they choose to live there.

People don't understand homelessness. They think they're all drunks, dope addicts and lost work living in those slums.

Nope.

Spend some time at the Salvation Army in Australia, and you'll understand there's no simple way to cure that problem. As a free society allows people to choose to live where they want.

Just like that homeless guy months ago that the NYC cop offers new boots too, who later found out he wasn't totally homeless and likes to go barefoot...it's his choice to do so.

And you wouldn't even know I also live in extreme poverty (I exist on $700/mon, and on disability). And the only thing keeping me from not living on the street is my mom and sis worked and paid for this house. My mom died last year, my sis got injured and lost her job of 33 years, and now I'm the breadwinner who's disabled trying to live and take care of my sis now who can barely walk.

But I wouldn't change our system. It offered a good life, upto now.

I'm not angry at it, even though I have 2 pieces of bread and 3 eggs to last until next month for my sis and I to eat.

So when I read about all the hardships in game and people claim I'm cruel and harsh, well maybe because I have to be to just survive (and thrive in it).

If there's no money in it, the companies won't build. Where I live Comcast dominates, despite there's some areas that Cox and other providers can expand.

But if the piece of the pie is so small, there's little return on the investment, and that's the real reason the market isn't getting cheaper. Got to have real competition, and the little guys offering features equal to Comcast at a cheaper price. For an upstart they can't buy wholesale bandwidth like Comcast can, they're nickel and dimed on everything as they can't buy in volume at a cheaper rate.

And if the government gets involved, telecommunications becomes protected just like commercial airlines (the rates are cheaper these days, service is horrible).