STGOD 4 OOC Thread

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-05-30 11:02pm

You realize of course that Basque Corp is unlikely to have holding in Asgard since for the last century or so they've kept out foreign companies.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-05-30 11:03pm

Actually, the Hajr has specifically kept it's infiltrations into nations near Hudson lower than in the core.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-30 11:05pm

Hehe... no offices in our space yet

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-05-30 11:06pm

Well, you are a libertarian state! It won't be long, nossir!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-30 11:17pm

Thirdfain wrote:Well, you are a libertarian state! It won't be long, nossir!

No it wont.

Though, we WILL find out if they are up to anything

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-05-30 11:19pm

dude, a fucking TERRATON a MINUTE?

No Fucking Way.

Capisce?

-edit- ok, terraton a minute, still No fucking Way.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-30 11:20pm

I imagine it would be too much for people to recignize that using missiles doesn't let you have UBER INSTANT WIN MISSILE SWARM OMG ROXOR. Same as Beowulf, it's very annoying... And the main reason the Overseer's anti-missile defenses are top-notch.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-05-30 11:51pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:It is just a cultural similarity. Lessens the effects of poverty.

To a simply massive degree. Public education gives poor people upward mobility which would otherwise be denied them.

DO I have to go into says law again? In order to spend and make money, one must produce a good or service. If a business is not taxed as much, they will be able to open up more factories, hire new workers, raise wages, AND invest in other businesses so that they can do the same.

That's a fine hypothesis, but I'd hardly call it a viable theory, much less a "law." There's always a certain amount of lost money in any system, and in a system with no government oversight whatsoever, the amount of money lost will be much larger.

really? That is one massive income tax...

It's worked rather well for most of Europe despite that.

And again, without the tax on business, the insurance will be cheaper.

Not significantly.

Even if they can se their prices.... it still is not a monopoly due to the fact that they DID have competition. They could set their prices in much the same way that Dell sets thiers, LOW. Because if they didnt, people would choose their competition.

Apparently your understanding of the robber baron days is quite limited. There simply wasn't a competition for people to choose from! Standard Oil set artificially high prices and gouged the people who supplied it with goods and services because it had crushed all notable competition. The problem was such that Standard Oil was the corporation most cited by proponents of anti-trust legislation, and it was eventually broken up because of its status as a notorious monopoly.

Why do you think that we have anti-trust laws on the books? For fun?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-31 12:03am

That's a fine hypothesis, but I'd hardly call it a viable theory, much less a "law." There's always a certain amount of lost money in any system, and in a system with no government oversight whatsoever, the amount of money lost will be much larger.

Actually, Says Law is a law... Supply ccreates its own demand. In order to spend, one must produce. Unless one steals their money.

Apparently your understanding of the robber baron days is quite limited. There simply wasn't a competition for people to choose from!

I seem to remember reading that the price of petrolim products during the age of Standard Oil dropped.

However, in the interests of defending the people from coercion, a few anti-trust laws could easily be in the books.

To a simply massive degree. Public education gives poor people upward mobility which would otherwise be denied them.

That is what need based scholarhips are for. Private scholarships, scholarhips from the schools... There is a set amount of money that it costs to teach a student, that is the tuition cost. At elementary levels, it doesnt cost much per kid. And by the time they get out of elementary, where tey will go for upper level classes is pretty well set.

Kids get payed for apprenticeship programs.

The upper level schools wil practially pay for the student to go there if they are good enough...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-31 12:05am

Though, I could always pull the good old "we arent dealing with humans and their culture is optimized to work this way" bit. WHch is true.

I am a libertarian and recognize the need for a baseline public education system for example. Simply because we are dealing with humans and we are not intrinsicly altruistic.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-31 12:08am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
That's a fine hypothesis, but I'd hardly call it a viable theory, much less a "law." There's always a certain amount of lost money in any system, and in a system with no government oversight whatsoever, the amount of money lost will be much larger.
Actually, Says Law is a law... Supply ccreates its own demand. In order to spend, one must produce. Unless one steals their money.

This is a load of tripe. Two words contradict it: SEGA DREAMCAST. Or any of a dozen other times when there has been thousands or millions of units sitting in a warehouse, not selling.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-31 12:11am

SirNitram wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
That's a fine hypothesis, but I'd hardly call it a viable theory, much less a "law." There's always a certain amount of lost money in any system, and in a system with no government oversight whatsoever, the amount of money lost will be much larger.
Actually, Says Law is a law... Supply ccreates its own demand. In order to spend, one must produce. Unless one steals their money.
This is a load of tripe. Two words contradict it: SEGA DREAMCAST. Or any of a dozen other times when there has been thousands or millions of units sitting in a warehouse, not selling.

Then there is this little concept called the "Invisible hand"

How do people get their money, only two ways. earning it or stealing it.

To earn money, you have to provide a good or service that is then traded for something else(usually money) This eans, that before anyone can spend, they must produce something that somene else is willing to pay for. And to pay for that they must have priduced something another wished to pay for with the money they made from producing.....

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-31 12:13am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote: Actually, Says Law is a law... Supply ccreates its own demand. In order to spend, one must produce. Unless one steals their money.
This is a load of tripe. Two words contradict it: SEGA DREAMCAST. Or any of a dozen other times when there has been thousands or millions of units sitting in a warehouse, not selling.
Then there is this little concept called the "Invisible hand"

How do people get their money, only two ways. earning it or stealing it.

To earn money, you have to provide a good or service that is then traded for something else(usually money) This eans, that before anyone can spend, they must produce something that somene else is willing to pay for. And to pay for that they must have priduced something another wished to pay for with the money they made from producing.....

And this supports the bogus 'law' how, Alyrium? Simply having a supply does not create a Demand. There is, in fact, good historical precedent for Demand without any supply at all, or any form of infrastructure to make the Supply; the supply came later, in response to the Demand.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-05-31 12:17am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Actually, Says Law is a law... Supply ccreates its own demand. In order to spend, one must produce. Unless one steals their money.

If you're going to cite an economic law, then do it correctly, without projecting your own political shading onto it. You attempted to create the impression that Says Law dictated that lowering taxes on corporations would increase overall productivity, which is an entirely unproven assertion.

I seem to remember reading that the price of petrolim products during the age of Standard Oil dropped.

The prices did not keep pace with the improvement of extraction and refining technology. Oil prices fell much more significantly after the government broke SOCNJ into pieces.

However, in the interests of defending the people from coercion, a few anti-trust laws could easily be in the books.

Concession accepted, then.

That is what need based scholarhips are for. Private scholarships, scholarhips from the schools... There is a set amount of money that it costs to teach a student, that is the tuition cost. At elementary levels, it doesnt cost much per kid. And by the time they get out of elementary, where tey will go for upper level classes is pretty well set.

You expect private scholarships to pick up the slack? What incentive would a school or business have to fund an investment that won't see a dime in returns for probably 18 years, and has the best chance of producing nothing more advanced than a skilled laborer? Elementary school education for the impoverished has to be funded by the government, because nobody else is going to do that.

You know, the idea of private-only education has been done historically, in Europe and America. Oddly enough, after public education was instituted, social mobility and literacy rates skyrocketed.

Kids get payed for apprenticeship programs.

Great, so you have a good process set up for training craftsmen and skilled laborers. But I guess only rich people and the top 10% of students get to become professionals.

The upper level schools wil practially pay for the student to go there if they are good enough...

Unfortunately, in order for a school to offer scholarships to 20 gifted students they need 80 not-so-gifted students to pay their own way.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-05-31 12:19am

Frankly, Alyrium no economy will work as you predicting yours will. So please for the sake of the game just compromise and move on.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-31 12:21am

And this supports the bogus 'law' how, Alyrium? Simply having a supply does not create a Demand. There is, in fact, good historical precedent for Demand without any supply at all, or any form of infrastructure to make the Supply; the supply came later, in response to the Demand.

When I reer to emand, I refer to the ability and willingness to pay for a good or service. In order for that to work, the item in question mut exist. Before that time, people WANT a cure for cancer, but cannot demand it.

In order for someone to be able to pay for something, they must have a means of exchange. to get this means of exchange, they must have Stolen it, produced it themselves(in the case of pure barter) or traded something they DID produce for said means of exchange(getting paid in money)

When someone produces something, they supply said thing. So therefore, before someone can DEMAND anything in an economic sense(as defined above as the ability and willingness to ay for a pre-existing good or service) they must supply a good or service that they produced. Thus, Supply creates demand.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-31 12:23am

very well, baseline public education delt with on the local level.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-31 12:26am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
And this supports the bogus 'law' how, Alyrium? Simply having a supply does not create a Demand. There is, in fact, good historical precedent for Demand without any supply at all, or any form of infrastructure to make the Supply; the supply came later, in response to the Demand.
When I reer to emand, I refer to the ability and willingness to pay for a good or service. In order for that to work, the item in question mut exist. Before that time, people WANT a cure for cancer, but cannot demand it.

There are many rich people with cancer. They have the ability to pay for the good, and a definate willingness. You are purposefully trying to change the definition(Even the one you quote) to try and fit this ridiculous law.

Again. Supply alone does not create demand. There's this thing called observable evidence against it.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-05-31 12:29am

In fact, it's pretty fucking clear what creates demand- People. Supply is one influencing factor on how much worth people will attribute to something, and it's a major one, but it's FAR from the only one.

Worth creates demand, and Worth is a completely human, ephemeral creation.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-05-31 12:33am

Marcao will, for the purposes of streamlining the Attack, be posting the Ouster/monacoran/Veithan initial strike on the Machine base, while Straha and I will take care of the ground action.

Everyone else handles their own fleets, unless they'd like Marcao to handle theirs as well.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-31 12:39am

I'm actually wondering how ships which propel themselves by means of a gravity field held in front of them can avoid mine hits; wouldn't they be dragged towards the ship?

I'm going to wait for Marcao to post the initial movement before the Overseer reacts.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-05-31 12:44am

the mines would impact with the sidewalls. I think it's safe to say that your modern mines would have penaids capable of breaching sidewalls, as sidewall tech is common and well known. Of course, it would be no easier to destroy the ships that if they were shielded convenionally...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-31 12:45am

SirNitram wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
And this supports the bogus 'law' how, Alyrium? Simply having a supply does not create a Demand. There is, in fact, good historical precedent for Demand without any supply at all, or any form of infrastructure to make the Supply; the supply came later, in response to the Demand.
When I reer to emand, I refer to the ability and willingness to pay for a good or service. In order for that to work, the item in question mut exist. Before that time, people WANT a cure for cancer, but cannot demand it.
There are many rich people with cancer. They have the ability to pay for the good, and a definate willingness. You are purposefully trying to change the definition(Even the one you quote) to try and fit this ridiculous law.

Again. Supply alone does not create demand. There's this thing called observable evidence against it.

Supply in the economic sense does not mean a product on a shelf. it means the act of producing a good or service and subsequently selling it.

Can you demand something that does not exist? Walk up to a phamacy and demand a cure for cancer. You will be laughed at. You WANT a cure for cancer. to be ABLE to pay for something, it must exist for you to be able to pay for it.

That is what Says Law actually means. It means that in order for you to be able to demand(in the economic sense) you just have something to trade for it.

Your reasons for demanding something come from, as Thirdfain said, your own personal choice. If you dont want something, you wont demand it.

However, if you have supplied something to someone else and they paid you for it, you ARE going to demand SOMETHING. However, if you have not, you are not in the position to demand anything.

Thus Supply(your production of a good or service that gets traded for money) creates its own demand(if you have successfully supplied something, you will demand Something with the money you made)

I cant make it any clear without going back to my old economics class and cracking open a book.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-05-31 12:45am

SirNitram wrote:I'm actually wondering how ships which propel themselves by means of a gravity field held in front of them can avoid mine hits; wouldn't they be dragged towards the ship?

Because whatever technobabble is used to generate the wedge the effects don't seem to propogate far beyond the wedge itself. (Chalk up another David Weber science blooper).

And the fact that they deploy a good deal of ECM helps them to avoid hits. I'm presuming these aren't contact mines so that's going to throw off their aim.

SirNitram wrote:I'm going to wait for Marcao to post the initial movement before the Overseer reacts.

Okay.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-05-31 12:47am

SirNitram wrote:I'm actually wondering how ships which propel themselves by means of a gravity field held in front of them can avoid mine hits; wouldn't they be dragged towards the ship?

I'm going to wait for Marcao to post the initial movement before the Overseer reacts.

That is why we use Ion drives

And hundreds of point defense weapons