EVE General Discussion

I gave you one. The incredible imbalance of wealth in the US. Not the fact that an imbalance exists, but the degree of that imbalance. I'm not holding any cards behind my back. The data itself is readily available and speaks volumes.



No, your premise that there is and can only be one or the other is unsound, because if your argument is only based on there being no guarantee for future sustainability, then surely you can see how that can apply to the current model of capitalism most prevalent in the US as well. You seem to think that there are only a few countries in the world that can act as an example of what works and what doesn't, so here's a question: if something works somewhere better than something else somewhere else right now, which one do you think has a better chance of being more successful in the future? In other words, if there is such a high degree of inequality in the US making the majority of the population worse off for it, but no such problem in Australia to the same degree, which one of those systems that is "working right now" is most likely to be sustainable?

Additionally, in regards to "That is what I mean when I say that the experiment of a hybrid middle ground society remains unproven."

Many countries have mixed economic system with elements of both capitalism and socialism. In the U.S., predominantly a capitalist system, there are still social programs such as social security and Medicare. In many socialist countries, there are private business firms. Australia is an example of a very balanced economy, hence if you look up worldwide economic statistics at the moment, Australia is incredibly powerful on the global economic stage. Which is why even though we're in debt, there are 31 countries, including yours, who have bonds in our debt because it is an incredibly valuable debt.

Also, now that I've had a moment to do a little research, I can tell you that what I'm talking about has a name: it's called a mixed economy. Turns out, it has plenty of historical precedent.

The American School (also known as the National System) is the economic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-twentieth century. It consisted of three core policy initiatives: protecting industry through high tariffs (1861–1932) (changing to subsidies and reciprocity from 1932-1970s), government investment in infrastructure through internal improvements, and a national bank to promote the growth of productive enterprises. During this period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world, surpassing the UK (though not the British Empire) by 1880.

Dirigisme is an economic policy initiated under Charles de Gaulle of France designating an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence. It involved state control of a minority of the industry, such as transportation, energy and telecommunication infrastructures, as well as various incentives for private corporations to merge or engage in certain projects. Under its influence France experienced what is called "Thirty Glorious Years" of profound economic growth.

Social market economy is the economic policy of modern Germany that steers a middle path between the goals of social democracy and capitalism within the framework of a private market economy, and aims at maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, public welfare and public services by using state intervention. Under its influence Germany has emerged from desolation and defeat to become an industrial giant within the European Union.

And I'm still laughing that you called Australia a socialist country. The economy of Australia is one of the largest capitalist economies in the world with a GDP of US$1.57 trillion. Australia's total wealth is 6.4 trillion dollars. In 2011, it was the 13th largest national economy by nominal GDP and the 17th-largest measured by purchasing power parity adjusted GDP, about 1.7% of the world economy. Australia is the 19th-largest importer and 19th-largest exporter.

Per capita GDP, or PPP, ranks us fifth in the entire world. Australia's sovereign credit rating is "AAA", higher than the United States of America and Australia's four 'Big Banks' are among the 'World's 50 Safest Banks' as of April 2012. The four largest banks in Australia are also known as the "Big Four". According to the 2011 Credit Suisse Global Wealth report, Australia has a median wealth of US$222,000 ($217,559), the highest in the world and nearly four times the amount of each US adult. The proportion of those with wealth above US$100,000 is the highest of any country – eight times the world average. Average wealth was $US397,000, the world's second-highest after Switzerland.

So for a socialist country, we must be doing alright, hey.

How has this wormhole of a thread not collapsed in on itself yet?

I've read enough of your posts. Your logic is more dizzying and nausea inducing than the jump animation.

You didn't answer the question, how is CCP getting more money per month from the Plex fail exactly?

Oh and I know exactly how it was born, it simplified the GTC/ETC system. Which was running well in 2004.

1. So real money gets thrown at CCP for a game time Plex. Or a GTC/ETC is transformed into a game time Plex. Same thing basically.
2. Game time Plex is traded for existing ISK or items in the game.
3. Game time Plex is used.

How is this bad exactly? Are you saying those existing items, are somehow special and more powerful than normal items? If this is the case, why did the person trade them? Wouldn't he be better with them, than without?

You know who is to blame for this mess? CANADA!
BLAME CANADA!

How exactly is PLEX 'pay to win'?

How does it disrupt 'game challenge'?

No, PLEX has always existed as far as I know, and here is the proof.

I'm sure new players will be thrilled with a champion that doesn't even understand the concept of a Plex. Or what P2W or F2P is. Thrilled.

Reading a lot of incorrect posts doesn't answer the question.

Pay to Win is when you can buy an in game advantage with cash that is not available through other means to a player that does not spend cash to acquire it.

This does not occur in EvE.

At most you might get items slightly quicker (but not the skills to use them), although that is highly debatable. The downside is that when that item blows up (as it inevitably will) you are out real cash while the other guy is out only pretend money.

Your equipment paid for with cash is in no way superior to the same equipment that I can buy with ISK.

EvEs way of doing things does not even remotely border on being a true pay to win methodology.