[gameprogrammer] Re: PC game Outsourcing

You are confusing government and economics. The two, much like church and 
state, should be seperate and not allowed to interfere with each other. You are 
also confusing capitalism with individualism.
 
Capitalist economics takes into account intangible items such as goodwill, and 
other subjective questions like public perceptions, public relations and 
long-term sustainability of the busines model.
 
Capitalism can be viewed similarly to how Churchill viewed democracy. He said 
it (democracy) was the worst system in the world except for all the others ever 
tried. Translation--it isn't perfect but it is better than everything else 
we've tried.
 
Capitalism is superior because it provides the most goods to the most people 
(it rewards efficiency). The market is unemotional so it doesn't take into 
account human tradition, human feelings or human sensibilities. Some have said 
"well why not take the best of capitalism and the best of socialism." The two 
are diametrically opposed to each other. Capitalism is profit driven. It is a 
bit like the innate urge to procreate in animals. Money looks for ways to make 
more money. If it doesn't, it "dies". There are lots of similarities between 
economics and ecology. In fact many ecology theories are based on economic 
formulas.
 
Why is capitalism better (not perfect but better) than other systems. Profit is 
residual. Profit is what is left over after all the bills are paid--the 
suppliers, the workers, the banks. Once all those people are paid, what is left 
is yours. Now you have a huge incentive to be efficient. Because the more you 
control your costs, the more you profit. That is money you can use to grow your 
business, invest in new business or fritter away on whiskey and women.
 
Governments have no incentive to be efficient because they have no mechanism 
for creating or distributing profits. In fact, the last thing you want is for a 
government to return a "profit" because in most cases it will use it to expand. 
 
The communist/socialist governments of the last century had an opportunity to 
rule in the name of the people. You expressed a concern for the environment. 
Have you any idea the environmental mess that the former Eastern bloc 
governments presided over? There certainly was not profit. Just the corruption 
that comes with power. The point is that it isn't necessarily the drive for 
profit that results in environmental degradation.
 
Finally, there is a way to put the power of corporartions in the hands of the 
people. Buy the stock of public companies and vote your proxies when they are 
due. It has never been easier to buy stock than it is now through direct stock 
purchase plans (buying from the company directly without a broker) or through 
divident reinvestment plans (DRIPs). Often you can invest as little as $10 per 
month. This aligns the goals of corporations with the desires of the public in 
a way that doesn't involve government control.
 
Ok, enough of this, I am going back to programming and I will continue voting 
for free market capitalists--because government is seldom the answer.
 
Keith Emery
 
Alexander Whaley <awhaley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Following this thread is fascinating. The more I read, the more I think 
that "pure" capitalism will never work.
To use the "environmental" analogy: it makes sense for a pure capitalist 
to push his/her product to be the cheapest. So, if I want to build a 
plant that produces paper, why don't I build one in Brazil. Then once 
the "cheap" wood there is gone, I move on to another country. Why pay 
for recycling when I can just as easily just cut the cost out of my 
spreadsheet, after all, the world is good for at least another 100 years 
or so. By then I will be dead and who really cares about the rest?

By the way, why do those who believe in "may the best product win" (ie 
capitalism) also seem to pay their taxes? After all, why pay taxes when 
you can hire your own 
law-enforcer/fireman/doctor/teacher/street-cleaner/etc and get the best 
person to do the job. This will save money and everything will become 
more efficient.

Or is that too much bother? What happens when people join together to 
deliver a better product (eg a cheaper police force for their 
community). Then do you join them? How do you decide on where this new 
police force spend its time? Seems to me you become a "mini" goverment 
soon and we are back at square one.

Also, as soon as you start worrying about your impact on others, you are 
no longer truly a "capitalist". But then, you must decide where you draw 
the line, how much help you give to others. For example, I want my 
friends to do well. granted, they are not all geniuses like I am (I am 
truly brilliant in chemistry by the way ;) ) but, I want them to have 
some money. Why? Because if they don't have money then they can't buy my 
product. Aaah, but they can develop their own product. True, but it is 
easier for them to do "affirmative shopping" and redistribute my wealth 
to the "needy". After all, they are very good at it and thus they have 
developed a good product. Seems like pure capitalism to me. And now, I 
am hurting because I was just relieved of my "extraneous" assets.

We can dissect this question a million ways. Eventually, the people not 
affected will not see a problem. Those who are affected will cry bloody 
murder. I think that we should read the biographies of the great 
inventors of the last 2 centuries. Most of them collaborated at some 
level or another. Sitting together on train journeys, in restaurants, 
etc and thye discussed their ideas. They knew who had thought of what 
and cooperated for what they percieved to be "the good of science". True 
we got the atomic bomb out of them, but a lot of other good came out of too.

By the way, you have all given me 2 brilliant ideas for an in-game 
dynamic. Someone asked me: "how will your game be any different from CIV 
III? Well, now I know of one more aspect. I will give players the 
opportunity to help other players to develop. They will be able to 
donate money for specific projects which will raise the standard of 
living of the poeple in the other country. Then they will be able to 
increase trade as they will be able to sell their products. (eg, I have 
all the iron mines and I want to seel iron goods to the neighbour). This 
idea is not original I am basing it it on the news I read a few years 
back that the US had granted China preferential trading status (ie 
exempt of certain import taxes for X years), in exchange of which US 
companies got early access to the Chinese markets after Y years.The 
second idea is that I will allow the military to divide its spending 
between "action" units (troops) and "intel" units. Then the intel 
units's time can be devoted to straling trade info from the other 
players, resulting in a boost in commerce for my country.

THESE will NOT be available in a CAPITALISTIC government as it would 
mean that inferior products will be pushed forward.

What do yous think? Would it make the game stand out a bit?

-- 
This message is intended for the addressee only and is confidential and
the copying thereof is prohibited. The above information may
contain personal views of the author thereof and is not necessarily the
views or policies of the University of Pretoria and the University of
Pretoria does therefore not accept liability for any damages arising
from the correctness of the facts stated in this communication, unless
specifically stated. If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately and destroy the original message.



-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
-- Type: text/x-vcard
-- File: awhaley.vcf

Other related posts: