Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition

Reader mode
Oshha said:
This is why I am voting for grants. If people opposing it could give me a practical reason for why grants is bad like Housing Costing us Logistics or not being cost-effective in terms of Resource to stat gain or the grants would go to the megacorp and not small businesses, then I wouldn't oppose them. But it is all ideological about how grants is bad because the private economy is bad and how the government not controlling everything is bad so I see no reason not to oppose grants and I'm fed up these irrational ideology-based arguments shutting down any reasonable discussion about grants on the Discord that I am voting for grants because that arguments against it suck enough that they are actually a reason to do grants in my books.

Especially since the QM has stated that grants will eventually provide more than they take, they won't go to megacorps, but small businesses and that they will help fill the gaps in the economy for things that the public want, but are too trivial for the government to care about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One thing I've learned is that people that say that the arguments are not ideologically based are either A:lying or B:lying to themselves.
Now if the QM wants to say that Capitalist are good people that won't game and work to destroy the system to there benefit okay I will take that world building as fact and support the grants.
 
BeepSmile said:
Direct answer to your question:

For me at least it would be because the buisnisses being corps or coops makes little (actually: zero meaningful) difference to one of the major problems I have with Light Industrial grants.

But also on phone and too tired to put awake BeepSmile's logic-chain reasoning to comprehensible words something like:

Something hell is the firm (5%)
Something market competition + something foundations of aristoricy (95%)

----

If you're genuinly curious, I think asking nicely might get you someone willing to point you to the litrature that explains their reasoning, but your post reads more to me as aggravated confused rather than curious confused, and I am 100% not up for that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thank you. You said what I wanted to say.
While hierarchical structure of corporations vastly exacebrates exploitation of workers, merely transitioning to cooperatives does not remove inherent pressures of profit motive. The problem is the market system where these organisations operate. While our is, so far, unusualy healthy, we already allowed rot of capitalism to set in. Empowering it further is not something I support.
 
Guys, guys. This isn't a pathocracy. Psychopaths aren't in charge of the free market party or the corporations. If anything, they're in charge of Nod.
 
Last edited:
What people seem to be forgetting is that regardless of the ideological position and I know that some people are picking grants just to annoy the people who don't like them.

We are already producing the goods the grants would produce through the LGI sectors we built/can build in much the same variety. We in no way shape or form need them and they are likely to start taking energy and capgoods over time.

Resources that we continually say we cannot afford to waste or spend frivolously.
 
[X] Plan Finishing Rollouts with URLS and Spider Cotton
[X] Plan Sorry Carter /w Wartime Factory Refits
[X] Plan Sorry Carter

Spider Cotton and/or Wartime Factory Refits would both be good changes, but the leading plan so far is good enough overall I think. Lets just hope we roll well enough for the new missiles this turn.
 
Shard of Victory said:
Thank you. You said what I wanted to say.
While hierarchical structure of corporations vastly exacebrates exploitation of workers, merely transitioning to cooperatives does not remove inherent pressures of profit motive. The problem is the market system where these organisations operate. While our is, so far, unusualy healthy, we already allowed rot of capitalism to set in. Empowering it further is not something I support.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But seriously though. This is numbers quest. Why has no anti grant person b4 me told @Oshha that LI grants will result in us loosing available Power, Cap goods, possibly logistics, but most of all:

Labour! The thing we can't accerlate production of!
Best we can do is wait for a portion of incoming refugees to recover and train up.

(Note, we're already going max automation with available cap goods, just fouced on maximaaing output per person as opposed to minimising needed labour)
 
I don't want to do grants cause they seem unnecessary the free market we already got told last update is doing fine on it own, seem like a waste of resources
 
BeepSmile said:
Why has no anti grant person b4 me told @Oshha that LI grants will result in us loosing available Power, Cap goods, possibly logistics, but most of all:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, no one has told me that before this post. I have only heard of Housing Grants costing us Logistics. Do you have a source for this that I could look at?
 
Oshha said:
Actually, no one has told me that before this post. I have only heard of Housing Grants costing us Logistics. Do you have a source for this that I could look at?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's kinda self evident to produce things you need power to run the machines,cap goods to produce the machines, logistics to transport the things unless they are building there own power sources and machines by hand in which case i doubt they need grants.
 
[X] Plan Military and All Dice with Bureaucracy Review Instead Of Services

I have stated my position and whilst I have ideological objections I also have practical ones stated on this (page524) and the last few pages.
 
This a question for the future but do we get more labor when the population grows after a number of years? Like will we see a Labor boom and bust during the middle of Seo run? It will have been 10-15 years at that point.
 
Image said:
This a question for the future but do we get more labor when the population grows after a number of years? Like will we see a Labor boom and bust during the middle of Seo run? It will have been 10-15 years at that point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Labor isn't going to increase from population growth, because on average the population is decreasing. The way we get more Labor in this quest is either by using Capital Goods to do increasing amounts of automation to free up more workers, or by getting immigrants from out of GDI territory (and then putting them through universities/schools so they know how to work our equipment.)
 
Breaking my previous statement:
CyberEnby said:
There are some compelling arguments that markets themselves inherently perpetuate inequality over time, so I wouldn't dismiss people's dislike of grants out of hand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thank you. While a more detailed summary would be good, this is the sort of actual "here is my concern, with reasoning behind it" post I would like to see more of.
(Having skimmed the article, it seems to be saying that, in a free market without wealth redistribution measures, wealth tends to trickle up due to the decreased capability of the poor to engage in commerce. I have issues with some of the assumptions/simplifications, such as the portrayal as a zero-sum system, but there are good points there.)
The question I have, is how much of a problem this would cause in an economic system that is not really seen in the present day. The GDI most closely represents a petrostate, because the vast majority of its wealth comes from state-run resource extraction. To a degree that really cannot be seen anywhere in RL history. (In other words, would this inequality be noticeable given the base wealth generation that is provided to everyone, more-or-less equally?)

My general concern is, given that wealth inequality already exists to some extent, how can we push for measures to prevent people from being able to convert money into political power. That does not seem to be something that would be affected by a relatively small-scale grant program.

(The benefits of grant programs being: eventual tax income, and increase in Consumer Goods, which will lead to happier people and politicians, with a bunch of knock-on effects, presumably including increased resistance to infiltration and higher levels of population gain from refugees.)
BeepSmile said:
Labour! The thing we can't accerlate production of!
Best we can do is wait for a portion of incoming refugees to recover and train up.

(Note, we're already going max automation with available cap goods, just fouced on maximaaing output per person as opposed to minimising needed labour)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Incorrect. We have some projects that will lead to +Labor (Colombo Planned City), and when it becomes relevant will get others, because currently our automation programs are focused on maximizing output, not minimizing workforce.
(Yes, this is mostly from the discord, but also IIRC it's been stated as a general principle that projects will show themselves as need arises.)
 
Oshha said:
Actually, no one has told me that before this post. I have only heard of Housing Grants costing us Logistics. Do you have a source for this that I could look at?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Power and Cap goods comes from looking at the Housing grant info and aoplying basic logic.

To make Con Good output on our scale, the coops must be able to make those goods. That needs an injection of Cap Goods - on a scale we will notice. These cap goods also need to be powered.
'Possibly logistics' is based on needing to move finished products.

As more coops apply for grants to start up, more cap goods and power needed. Also more transport.

----

Looking at arts and services grants, this not an extroplation like above but 1:1... sameness? Wording hard.

As the markets expand, more people enter those sectors, gicing is more Con Goods every so often, but also taking from the available labour pool.

This can be seen near the start of some turns/results, a bit below the bit where our various resources are listed, maybe below the parties bit, not sure.

If housing costs logistics, I can not imagine how light industry on the scale we operate on would not cost cap goods + power

Granta eat available labour. That's a direct observation frim the quest.
 
Shard of Victory said:
How do we know that they do not lack empathy? Or, more likely, that they do not lack empathy to these who they consider beneath them: people their actions are most likely to harm?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because ordinary people like you and me will give thought to how it could affect others. A psychopath is physically incapable of doing such a thing. And since they know they are different from everyone else, they will hire and promote other psychopaths who will aid and abet them. And over time the pathocracy gets more entrenched and extreme since a psychopath is always thinking 'Who else could be a danger to me?' and so on and so forth. And a pathocracy can hide behind any system, but it's more predisposed to certain ones, such as communism, fascism, or any authoritarian and totalitarian system. It can also infect others, since psychopaths are willing to break any rules in the system, and once they're ensconced, their corruption seeps through the whole system.
 
Last edited:
Oshha said:
But it is all ideological about how grants is bad because the private economy is bad and how the government not controlling everything is bad so I see no reason not to oppose grants and I'm fed up these irrational ideology-based arguments shutting down any reasonable discussion about grants on the Discord that I am voting for grants because that arguments against it suck enough that they are actually a reason to do grants in my books.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How is that possible? the position I am arguing from and for is mechanical, and completely against ideological. In fact I have been and still am arguing for how bad of an idea grants are to do at the moment is bad for resource management reasons, and nothing against how the economy has to be shaped.

If grants were a one-time payment that could be chosen to be done and stopped at any point, then there wouldn't be nearly as much opposition for it. But the fact is taking a Grant seems to be a permanent cost and loss of income, vs all the temporary Income costs that every other option has instead.

Thus any Grant shouldn't be taken unless they're mechanically better vs the Treasury's centralized planning options for the sake of higher efficiency of resource expenditure and planning, such as say when the Treasury has more resources and not enough dices to use them with, or if we can be guaranteed that when the economy is fully up and running the Grants will automatically cease and stop costing income.

Otherwise the long long term gains are of an unknown value that we can't truly mathematically compare against the benefits of more resources that are put to known gains right now. Even Developments that have unknown benefits until fully developed take no more than a turn or two most of the time to reveal how useful the final result is, but the result of Grants would have to take an ungodly long time to complete jumpstarting the economy with before given to us. (Well, unless discord-ers jump in again and give us that info to present that comparison of cost and benefits and nullify this entire argument here and now anyways.) It's why I'd rather retain more income for the treasury to use to invest in things we know are useful right now over something that isn't even a priority, AKA the Consumer goods.
 
Last edited:
Image said:
This a question for the future but do we get more labor when the population grows after a number of years? Like will we see a Labor boom and bust during the middle of Seo run? It will have been 10-15 years at that point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think so, it's meant to be a limiter on expansion.

WoG is that we will get 2 types of automation:

Type A - We already see this with Agriculture Mechanisation. These are intended to increase our output with the same amount of labour.

Type B - We haven't seen these yet but they are intended to give us the same amount of production for a reduction in labour. Meaning we could mechanise our farms then automate much of that labour.
 
yep,grants do have costs initially

they are supposed to esentially make buisness grow,and buisness will require some sort of input (capital and materials) to generate output (goods and services),because we are the only industry,buisness will have to get all their inputs from us,at least initially
thing is output will keep growing over time and input will become more efficient and sustainable as buisness form connexions and buy things from each other instead of relying on the central government for everything

so is a initial stage drag,for midterm benefit that free resources and dices by not having to focus on a single thing,and long term is a massive benefit as outputs become bigger and bigger

this isnt the case with housing grants tho,because we know for a fact we will lose blue zones,meaning all the luxury housing will be lost
so is better to just build arcologies
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top