The League of Mechanocracies (Open, MT/PMT/FT, OOC, Signups)

[Vistora]

Do you guys get the feeling that there are lots of NS nations that slap the label "high tech" on themselves because it's a generic good thing or makes the army more powerful, but don't really follow through on the implications?

That'she why I like my region. The tech is explained, and furthermore you aren'the allowed to copy someone else's idea.

Question; why on Earth would you use antimatter as the explosive material itself in a bomb, as opposed to a primary/catalyst for fusion? Unless you're really fielding that much of it.

And I'm pretty sure that matter-antimatter annihilation releases a straight one-oh-oh percent of its mass-energy, theoretically at least. Excidium, I know how much you like antimatter, don't kill me if I'm wrong.

[Blakullar]

Question; why on Earth would you use antimatter as the explosive material itself in a bomb, as opposed to a primary/catalyst for fusion? Unless you're really fielding that much of it.

Because hand grenades the size of strawberries, that's why.

[Vistora]

I'm honestly pushing it on the MT axis with Ashkera Prime in a few ways.

1. ARCIS (Augmented Reality Combat Information System) - It's basically Google Glass for soldiers. All the tech should technically exist for this in the real world, it's just a matter of combining it without spending $400 billion on a failed military software procurement project. (Here I take license to say that Ashkera's government is competent enough to do it.) It doesn't actually do fancy image recognition (among a few other things that are currently impractical IRL).

Meh, that's technothriller-level stuff, so you should be fine.

2. Deliberately creating greater-than-tetra-gametic human chimeras for use as field agents.

Unless you're deriving your info from some niche research institutes, I think it's prudent to inform you that pretty much NO genetic engineer uses chimeric coefficients as a measure of how "engineered" an organism is. Technically, ANY organism with recombinant genes is a chimera, but they're not usually referred to as such.

3. Voluntary Gattaca-style genetic selection program.

That's less a matter of technology and more a matter of a society that promotes eugenics (if I remember the film correctly). In which case, every value espoused by socialism and socialist systems kind of... evaporates.

4. They're building a Rocket Sled Launch (roughly) up the side of mountain.

This is the only outright non-MT technology you've mentioned thus far. Rocket launch assistance is more early/mid-PMT, while dedicated mass drivers are on the later side.

[Vistora]

Question; why on Earth would you use antimatter as the explosive material itself in a bomb, as opposed to a primary/catalyst for fusion? Unless you're really fielding that much of it.

Because hand grenades the size of strawberries, that's why.

See Excidium's ridiculous nukebullets for why they are best used as catalysts.

[Maljaratas]

That'she why I like my region. The tech is explained, and furthermore you aren'the allowed to copy someone else's idea.

Question; why on Earth would you use antimatter as the explosive material itself in a bomb, as opposed to a primary/catalyst for fusion? Unless you're really fielding that much of it.

And I'm pretty sure that matter-antimatter annihilation releases a straight one-oh-oh percent of its mass-energy, theoretically at least. Excidium, I know how much you like antimatter, don't kill me if I'm wrong.

If you are referring to my factbooks, the main reason for usage in bombs is the public pressure to not use nukes or nuclear stuff at all. I will keep the fusion part in mind whenever I get around to that. Wikipedia says 50% or so I think

Edit: Bombs are still about the size of nukes for containment reasons. For economics reasons, only a few hundred are stored

[Ashkera]

Question; why on Earth would you use antimatter as the explosive material itself in a bomb, as opposed to a primary/catalyst for fusion? Unless you're really fielding that much of it.

Because hand grenades the size of strawberries, that's why.

You can do that with nano-fabricated ultra-compressed explosive molecules that are far cheaper to mass produce, to the point that you can put that material in bullets (depending on your level of tech and economy). I forget the exact details.
When I was doing more hard SF stuff, I had my ex-girlfriend around to help me.

Unless you're deriving your info from some niche research institutes, I think it's prudent to inform you that pretty much NO genetic engineer uses chimeric coefficients as a measure of how "engineered" an organism is. Technically, ANY organism with recombinant genes is a chimera, but they're not usually referred to as such.

Nah, it's because they're trying to get certain traits together in the same person, but lack the technology to
A) go stitching together the desired human genes, and
B) identify all the actual traits they want by genes.
So it's actually just one person with more than two cell lines (as opposed to two cell lines from ordinary human chimeras).

That's less a matter of technology and more a matter of a society that promotes eugenics (if I remember the film correctly). In which case, every value espoused by socialism and socialist systems kind of... evaporates.

They're not actually running on Socialist values, but on some obscure form of Utilitarianism (or something like it). The socialist elements of the economy are just an intermediate result. (The happiness of a CEO is not worth more to them than the happiness of a janitor, except instrumentally.)

[edit: From a story perspective this is fun, since you can make even beneficial Utilitarianism look really evil by the standards of other ethical systems.]

This is the only outright non-MT technology you've mentioned thus far. Rocket launch assistance is more early/mid-PMT, while dedicated mass drivers are on the later side.

It's just a magnetic rail track up the side of a mountain, really, but point taken.

[Vistora]

Question; why on Earth would you use antimatter as the explosive material itself in a bomb, as opposed to a primary/catalyst for fusion? Unless you're really fielding that much of it.

And I'm pretty sure that matter-antimatter annihilation releases a straight one-oh-oh percent of its mass-energy, theoretically at least. Excidium, I know how much you like antimatter, don't kill me if I'm wrong.

If you are referring to my factbooks, the main reason for usage in bombs is the public pressure to not use nukes or nuclear stuff at all. I will keep the fusion part in mind whenever I get around to that. Wikipedia says 50% or so I think

Edit: Bombs are still about the size of nukes for containment reasons. For economics reasons, only a few hundred are stored

Reading up, it seems dependant on whether or not you're annihilating leptons versus hadrons. The former (electron-positron annihilation) has a theoretical efficiency rate of 100%. The latter is more complex, though I believe there's only experimental data for singular protons.

[Maljaratas]

If you are referring to my factbooks, the main reason for usage in bombs is the public pressure to not use nukes or nuclear stuff at all. I will keep the fusion part in mind whenever I get around to that. Wikipedia says 50% or so I think

Edit: Bombs are still about the size of nukes for containment reasons. For economics reasons, only a few hundred are stored

Reading up, it seems dependant on whether or not you're annihilating leptons versus hadrons. The former (electron-positron annihilation) has a theoretical efficiency rate of 100%. The latter is more complex, though I believe there's only experimental data for singular protons.

Ok.

[Autem Galacticus Nexum]

If you are referring to my factbooks, the main reason for usage in bombs is the public pressure to not use nukes or nuclear stuff at all. I will keep the fusion part in mind whenever I get around to that. Wikipedia says 50% or so I think

Edit: Bombs are still about the size of nukes for containment reasons. For economics reasons, only a few hundred are stored

Reading up, it seems dependant on whether or not you're annihilating leptons versus hadrons. The former (electron-positron annihilation) has a theoretical efficiency rate of 100%. The latter is more complex, though I believe there's only experimental data for singular protons.

Wouldn't cracking the strong interaction between hadrons (i.e baryons and mesons) yield some sort of more efficient product that electron-positron annihilation? After all, they do get...annihilated. You can potentially salvage the hadron particles from their strong interaction with uber tech.

[Vistora]

You can do that with nano-fabricated ultra-compressed explosive molecules that are far cheaper to mass produce, to the point that you can put that material in bullets (depending on your level of tech and economy). I forget the exact details.
When I was doing more hard SF stuff, I had my ex-girlfriend around to help me.

That sounds borderline nanochem wankery. Remember, <coolsuffix>compression is not a viable handwave for making every smaller. Those details are probably key.

Nah, it's because they're trying to get certain traits together in the same person, but lack the technology to
A) go stitching together the desired human genes, and
B) identify all the actual traits they want by genes.
So it's actually just one person with more than two cell lines (as opposed to two cell lines from ordinary human chimeras).

Unless you found some way to make natal chimeras in an easy--or remotely plausible--fashion, I'm gonna guess that you're essentially referring to... surgical transplantation? You're not being very clear.

They're not actually running on Socialist values, but on some obscure form of Utilitarianism (or something like it). The socialist elements of the economy are just an intermediate result. (The happiness of a CEO is not worth more to them than the happiness of a janitor, except instrumentally.)

So, you basically have a moralistic command (either socialist or capitalist) economy intertwined with civil systems? I can see where you're going with this, but if you're not careful, the search for total equality can fly in the face of the hedonistic calculus so integral to utilitarian thought.

I.e. However unbalanced or "unfair" it may seem, a person with a modest standard of living and a person with a luxurious standard of living is preferable to two people with a modest, equal standard of living.

[Vistora]

Reading up, it seems dependant on whether or not you're annihilating leptons versus hadrons. The former (electron-positron annihilation) has a theoretical efficiency rate of 100%. The latter is more complex, though I believe there's only experimental data for singular protons.

Wouldn't cracking the strong interaction between hadrons (i.e baryons and mesons) yield some sort of more efficient product that electron-positron annihilation? After all, they do get...annihilated. You can potentially salvage the hadron particles from their strong interaction with uber tech.

Uhhhhhhh... no? Define "efficient". The primary product of hadron annihilations are gamma rays and mesons, which are unstable and further degenerate into a bunch of other shit (that's the scientific term).

As for your comments on the strong force, I'm assuming that you're talking about the mass-generating inter-quark binding energies that result from it. Yes, a lot of energy resides within these bonds, and I suppose that, ultimately, ou would certainly derive a lot more energy from a single hadron annihilation than a lepton annihilation. The trade-off is that it takes more energy to produce.

And if I weren't struggling enough, I haven't a clue what you mean by "salvage".

[Blakullar]

Because hand grenades the size of strawberries, that's why.

See Excidium's ridiculous nukebullets for why they are best used as catalysts.

Nuke-bul...

Anyway, it only takes a gram of antimatter and a gram of matter to create a Hiroshima-sized explosion. Theoretically, I could have nuke-bullets (but I don't, because that would be fucking stupid) as well as brick-sized nukes. One microgram, produced over the course of about an hour using contemporary Mecharussian antimatter-harvesting technology, should be all that's required for a decently-powerful concussion grenade.

[Autem Galacticus Nexum]

Wouldn't cracking the strong interaction between hadrons (i.e baryons and mesons) yield some sort of more efficient product that electron-positron annihilation? After all, they do get...annihilated. You can potentially salvage the hadron particles from their strong interaction with uber tech.

Uhhhhhhh... no? Define "efficient". The primary product of hadron annihilations are gamma rays and mesons, which are unstable and further degenerate into a bunch of other shit (that's the scientific term).

As for your comments on the strong force, I'm assuming that you're talking about the mass-generating inter-quark binding energies that result from it. Yes, a lot of energy resides within these bonds, and I suppose that, ultimately, ou would certainly derive a lot more energy from a single hadron annihilation than a lepton annihilation. The trade-off is that it takes more energy to produce.

And if I weren't struggling enough, I haven't a clue what you mean by "salvage".

Efficiency: achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.

Electron-positron annihilation would be wasted expense, since both of the particles would be effectively converted to equal energy, and not the equivalent particles or more to conduct more reactions. If one future civilization has the ability to construct hadronic attractors through the utilization of negative quark charges compared to those of normal hadron flavours, then they need little use for hadron production.

Remember, we are not talking about the Earth in 2015 A.D, we are talking about civilizations with technological progress surpassing possibly thousands of years of modern postulation and research. Seemingly impossible things in the modern world of normal & quantum physics may become an undisclosed reality in the future.

Salvage = re-utilization of hadron particles. Such a strong force between each other with stick them close together, but with an "uber tech" as I said, a civilization can find a way to counteract the sticking with another utilization; possibly invoking annihilation.

EDIT: ayy mang, don't get on my sheit, im investing in astrochem rn and not astrophysics because math is ass

[Ashkera]

That sounds borderline nanochem wankery. Remember, <coolsuffix>compression is not a viable handwave for making every smaller. Those details are probably key.

It was something about using molecular assemblers to directly build the explosive molecule atom-by-atom, allowing one to create better explosive molecules than currently-existing ones. Given the energy cost of anti-matter, it's probably still cheaper, though naturally far less energy-dense.

Unless you found some way to make natal chimeras in an easy--or remotely plausible--fashion, I'm gonna guess that you're essentially referring to... surgical transplantation? You're not being very clear.

Natal chimeras was the idea, since those already happen in nature. Surgical transplantation would probably result in rejection unless it was possible to figure out why it already doesn't result in rejection in natal human chimeras.
All this to get around being able to reliably edit DNA (without causing unacceptable collateral damage) in human cell lines not being a thing until very recently (and even then it looks like that's still not quite resolved?).

So, you basically have a moralistic command (either socialist or capitalist) economy intertwined with civil systems? I can see where you're going with this, but if you're not careful, the search for total equality can fly in the face of the hedonistic calculus so integral to utilitarian thought.

I.e. However unbalanced or "unfair" it may seem, a person with a modest standard of living and a person with a luxurious standard of living is preferable to two people with a modest, equal standard of living.

The key word "instrumentally" is very important in this context. Instrumental value is not inherent value, but it is a very, very big deal. Utility easily trumps total equality.

In other words, yes, it picks the modest+luxurious over modest+modest. However, there is a declining marginal return on investment the farther one gets into "luxurious". There are also things that are great for happiness but aren't just money - autonomy in work is an example.

The system I outlined is actually one that basically sets up employee-owned companies with a certain ownership distribution to pay almost no taxes, then throws in some welfare and progressive taxation. Other measures would be necessary to maintain the employee ownership, since this is basically an imposition on the economy. (Private companies are allowed, but are relatively rare.)

So it's still a market economy with competing corporations (that can go bankrupt) and advertisements everywhere, it's just that the ownership of those corporations has been spread out. From the perspective of a visiting tourist from a Capitalist nation, it likely won't appear that different. The real oddness would come when seeking employment.

(The irony that the regime doesn't hold real elections, but many companies would have elected executives, is deliberate.)

(Edit: Naturally, spreading out the ownership in this manner, even though it still isn't distributed equally, comes closer to the ideal of social ownership of the means of production. On the other hand, hardcore socialists would tend to view it as just capitalism with a hacky patch applied to it, and would probably find the idea of Ashkeran "Megacooperatives" absurd. Especially since not all employees have an equal vote.)

[Vistora]

It was something about using molecular assemblers to directly build the explosive molecule atom-by-atom, allowing one to create better explosive molecules than currently-existing ones. Given the energy cost of anti-matter, it's probably still cheaper, though naturally far less energy-dense.

It was something about using molecular assemblers to directly build the explosive molecule atom-by-atom

molecular assemblers

*vomit*

Natal chimeras was the idea, since those already happen in nature. Surgical transplantation would probably result in rejection unless it was possible to figure out why it already doesn't result in rejection in natal human chimeras.
All this to get around being able to reliably edit DNA (without causing unacceptable collateral damage) in human cell lines not being a thing until very recently (and even then it looks like that's still not quite resolved?).

That is an extremely difficult, complex, and roundabout way of accomplishing very little. Natural chimera are formed when the fertilized zygotes of fraternal twins merge into one, creating a single human with a heterogenous genome distribution. The problem is, I do not know if there is any way one can control the distribution of tissue itself. I'm guessing your thought process functions as so; you take the fertilized zygote of a child from two intelligent parents, and the fertilized zygote of a child from two strong parents, squish them together somehow catalyze an aggregation, stick that blastocyst into a womb or sufficiently advanced incubator, and wait until the child grows into something that is hopefully both intelligent and strong.

Yeah. There are a number of issues with that. First and foremost, the level of embryology involved absolutely surpasses that of modern-day tech, unless you want the chimera to be a total crapshoot. What it would take to actually control the distribution of tissue in desired areas is beyond what we have now, for sure.

Secondly, I am currently looking at a file folder full of documents describing about a dozen genetic-engineering related methods that would theoretically function with today's technology, courtesy of yours truly, as well as some research associates. All of which are superior to this odd natal chimera manipulation. I myself have done extensive research on using modified retroviral vectors as an alternative to plasmids, but if you're working with zygotes, then the process is even simpler. CRISPR-Cas9 that mofo, problem solved.

The key word "instrumentally" is very important in this context. Instrumental value is not inherent value, but it is a very, very big deal. Utility easily trumps total equality.

In other words, yes, it picks the modest+luxurious over modest+modest. However, there is a declining marginal return on investment the farther one gets into "luxurious". There are also things that are great for happiness but aren't just money - autonomy in work is an example.

The system I outlined is actually one that basically sets up employee-owned companies with a certain ownership distribution to pay almost no taxes, then throws in some welfare and progressive taxation. Other measures would be necessary to maintain the employee ownership, since this is basically an imposition on the economy. (Private companies are allowed, but are relatively rare.)

So it's still a market economy with competing corporations (that can go bankrupt) and advertisements everywhere, it's just that the ownership of those corporations has been spread out. From the perspective of a visiting tourist from a Capitalist nation, it likely won't appear that different. The real oddness would come when seeking employment.

(The irony that the regime doesn't hold real elections, but many companies would have elected executives, is deliberate.)

(Edit: Naturally, spreading out the ownership in this manner, even though it still isn't distributed equally, comes closer to the ideal of social ownership of the means of production. On the other hand, hardcore socialists would tend to view it as just capitalism with a hacky patch applied to it, and would probably find the idea of Ashkeran "Megacooperatives" absurd. Especially since not all employees have an equal vote.)

Ahaaaaa, so you're going for market democratic socialism, the wet dream of every lib-arts neckbeard from here to Boston. An admiral pursuit, perhaps, if it worked. Problem is, as a few real-world case studies have demonstrated, worker ownership of a company subjects it to a rather pitiful level of mismanagement, for reasons that should be obvious. Think "short-termism", but multiplied twentyfold. At least shareholders, capricious as they are, concern themselves with a company's entire well-being. Honestly, I've so far failed to see the prime difference between worker-owned and public companies, save for that ownership, and therefore executive decision, is equally distributed amongst the workers and ONLY the workers. If executive decision is not distributed (as is the only way to keep management effective), not only does ownership become rather meaningless, but the emergence of a heirarchy will inevitably result in wage stratification as well, undermining the concept of "democratically owned means of production" in the first place. The state, of course, can step in at any point and halt the process, but if that is to happen, then systematic flaws will overwhelm the company anyways. Overdistribution of management results in mismanagement, while the lack of wage differentiation leads to the classic issue of overextensive welfare; why work your ass off to be an executive when you can make the same amount gnawing doughnuts in a booth?

Anyways, the only real way to ensure all companies stay as cooperatives is through heavy regulation, the cost of which is better spent on eliminating the detrimental externalities of good ol' free market capitalism.

[Ashkera]

Secondly, I am currently looking at a file folder full of documents describing about a dozen genetic-engineering related methods that would theoretically function with today's technology, courtesy of yours truly, as well as some research associates. All of which are superior to this odd natal chimera manipulation. I myself have done extensive research on using modified retrovirual vectors as an alternative to plasmids, but if you're working with zygotes, then the process is even simpler. CRISPR-Cas9 that mofo, problem solved.

Well, that simplifies matters. I can retcon that sort of thing later. Part of the problem is that I want adult field agents now rather than in at least 10-20 years, though.

Problem is, as a few real-world case studies have demonstrated, worker ownership of a company subjects it to a rather pitiful level of mismanagement, for reasons that should be obvious. Think "short-termism", but multiplied twentyfold. At least shareholders, capricious as they are, concern themselves with a company's entire well-being.

Hmn, I have not seen such case studies, but I did see that functioning employee-owned companies already exist. However, I think that...

Honestly, I've so far failed to see the prime difference between worker-owned and public companies, save for that ownership, and therefore executive decision, is equally distributed amongst the workers and ONLY the workers.

...you're assuming a more socialist version than what I had in mind. I was definitely not thinking "one employee: one vote." Rather, the idea was that you'd have certain distributions of power within the company. So you might have situation where the maximum any one person is allowed to hold is 49%, and the minimum allowed is 1/(<number of employees>*3). I'm not sure what the exact numbers would work out to, because not only would it need to be analyzed by experiment, but it would need to be analyzed with maths prior to experiment.

In the past, when I was medicated and not clinically depressed, I was starting to try and develop better algorithms for dealing with this. For years, I haven't had the energy to work on it, however.

Anyhow, the use of "Cooperative" by the Ashkerans is a relative misnomer (and a deliberate misnomer on my part, decried by the occasional Ashkeran People's Party member in the Quotes thread). A typical Socialist would probably assume Worker Cooperative = one worker -> one vote.

If executive decision is not distributed (as is the only way to keep management effective), not only does ownership become rather meaningless, but the emergence of a heirarchy will inevitably result in wage stratification as well, undermining the concept of "democratically owned means of production" in the first place. [...] Overdistribution of management results in mismanagement, while the lack of wage differentiation leads to the classic issue of overextensive welfare; why work your ass off to be an executive when you can make the same amount gnawing doughnuts in a booth?

So the executive decision-making is not evenly distributed (and is probably delegated 99% of the time), and of course, wage stratification immediately follows. It was always expected to. It is not intended to be one of those countries where everyone earns about the same amount of money.

So it's more democratic, rather than truly democratic.

Part of the concept was that the State's behavioral economists and decision theorists and whatnot would be designing templates for the corporate governance based on their research.

So, to be clear,
- people get paid different amounts of money
- people have different amounts of ownership

There are probably plenty of millionaires, but no billionaires.

Anyways, the only real way to ensure all companies stay as cooperatives is through heavy regulation, the cost of which is better spent on eliminating the detrimental externalities of good ol' free market capitalism.

In this case, you just put it in the corporate charter, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Any corp that doesn't have a fitting charter doesn't get the tax breaks.

[Vistora]

Well, that simplifies matters. I can retcon that sort of thing later. Part of the problem is that I want adult field agents now rather than in at least 10-20 years, though.

Please, feel free to consult me on ANY matter pertaining to this subject. It is, after all, what I am seeking a doctorate in .

Hmn, I have not seen such case studies, but I did see that functioning employee-owned companies already exist. However, I think that...

"Case studies" wasn't a great word. "Examples" would be more prudent, and in that regard, several examples DO exist; however, they have largely failed to make a big splash as they are rather uncompetitive, largely relying on government protection lest they be swallowed up by more efficient private enterprises. Nevertheless, there is hardly any clause dictating that they are incompatible with a free-market capitalist system; it's just that, in such a system, their existence would be rare and short-lived due to competitive forces. The only way to make it system-wide is through government intervention, as you point out below.

...you're assuming a more socialist version than what I had in mind. I was definitely not thinking "one employee: one vote." Rather, the idea was that you'd have certain distributions of power within the company. So you might have situation where the maximum any one person is allowed to hold is 49%, and the minimum allowed is 1/(<number of employees>*3). I'm not sure what the exact numbers would work out to, because not only would it need to be analyzed by experiment, but it would need to be analyzed with maths prior to experiment.

In the past, when I was medicated and not clinically depressed, I was starting to try and develop better algorithms for dealing with this. For years, I haven't had the energy to work on it, however.

Anyhow, the use of "Cooperative" by the Ashkerans is a relative misnomer (and a deliberate misnomer on my part, decried by the occasional Ashkeran People's Party member in the Quotes thread). A typical Socialist would probably assume Worker Cooperative = one worker -> one vote.

Sooooo... it's essentially a public company that only distributes shares to its workers?

So the executive decision-making is not evenly distributed (and is probably delegated 99% of the time), and of course, wage stratification immediately follows. It was always expected to. It is not intended to be one of those countries where everyone earns about the same amount of money.

So it's more democratic, rather than truly democratic.

Part of the concept was that the State's behavioral economists and decision theorists and whatnot would be designing templates for the corporate governance based on their research.

So, to be clear,
- people get paid different amounts of money
- people have different amounts of ownership

I see what you're saying, and it makes sense, but... I'm failing to see the point. In the end, it only accomplishes a moderate amount of income rebalancing at the EXTREME cost of competitiveness. If more equal wage distribution is what you seek, I'd advise looking at the "Welfare Capitalism / Corporatism" of Germany, Denmark, and Sweden with a more authoritarian bent. Disregard Norway, unless you happen to be sitting on a shit-ton of oil. Norway's borderline socialism is sustained primarily by the world's equivalent of economic "cheese". If the Middle East is any demonstration, ANY system is sustainable when you have that kind of cashflow.

[Ashkera]

Sooooo... it's essentially a public company that only distributes shares to its workers?

That's a more accurate characterization than "worker's cooperative", just add in "with limits on how many shares any individual may own."

I see what you're saying, and it makes sense, but... I'm failing to see the point. In the end, it only accomplishes a moderate amount of income rebalancing at the EXTREME cost of competitiveness.

I'm not sure how bad the competitiveness hit would be in practice. Anyhow, there are other issues with corps, like working conditions, worker autonomy, "work all this unpaid overtime illegally or we'll fire you" and so on to be addressed. Part of the thinking was that this could address them without having to make, and enforce, a whole bunch of highly-specific laws.

Although partially, I admit I picked something that wasn't being done elsewhere on NS as part of a "third way" thing to make the government and culture more eccentric and help with the idea of it being behind a different power bloc.

Also, being American, "it's basically Europe" seemed kinda lame and unlikely to have a high GDP/cap...

If more equal wage distribution is what you seek, I'd advise looking at the "Welfare Capitalism / Corporatism" of Germany, Denmark, and Sweden with a more authoritarian bent. Disregard Norway, unless you happen to be sitting on a shit-ton of oil. Norway's borderline socialism is sustained primarily by the world's equivalent of economic "cheese". If the Middle East is any demonstration, ANY system is sustainable when you have that kind of cashflow.

...but for some reason, now that I checked, the GDP/cap of Sweden and Denmark both surpassed that bastion of capitalism, the United States of America.

[Vistora]

...but for some reason, now that I checked, the GDP/cap of Sweden and Denmark both surpassed that bastion of capitalism, the United States of America.

It's a mix, and even differs depending on your metric of choice. Highly developed capitalist economies on both the left (Sweden, Denmark, Germany) and the right (Switzerland, Singapore, United States) swirl around the top. At that point, it's a matter of whether or not you value economic equality vs economic freedom.

[Vistora]

Although partially, I admit I picked something that wasn't being done elsewhere on NS as part of a "third way" thing to make the government and culture more eccentric and help with the idea of it being behind a different power bloc.

Also, being American, "it's basically Europe" seemed kinda lame and unlikely to have a high GDP/cap....

I see what you mean, and applaud you on your originality and creativity at the very least. That's the problem though, with choosing a realistic and feasible system; it's likely to be replicated heavily IRL.

Also, I AM rather curious as towards the workings of NS' economics engine. My tax rate is one seventeenth of your own and I have a freer ("capitalizt", even) economy than yours, yet income inequality is somehow lower. iunno.

[Ashkera]

I see what you mean, and applaud you on your originality and creativity at the very least. That's the problem though, with choosing a realistic and feasible system; it's likely to be replicated heavily IRL.

I'll probably change the write-up to substitute Moar Technocracy for the previous economic layout. "Oh yeah, they just happen to have very high GDP while having this huge welfare state" seemed a bit too cheaty by itself. But, if Sweden can do $64k/cap in a year and still pull it off, then that kinda works. It makes Ashkera even more Statist too, which I consider to be an advantage in this case.

[Ashkera]

Also, I AM rather curious as towards the workings of NS' economics engine. My tax rate is one seventeenth of your own and I have a freer ("capitalizt", even) economy than yours, yet income inequality is somehow lower. iunno.

Well, I can tell you how to make a huge economy in NS:
1. Business Subsidies
2. Economic freedoms, except when it cuts business subsidies.

Economic inequality seems to be its own independent stat based on the text of the issue choices rather than actual economic simulation.
I've found myself able to control it on purpose, which is why mine is higher than yours - I'm aiming for a bottom 10% of probably 40,000 Ashkeros, and I've pushed the economy's income so high that I accidentally exceeded that. Interestingly, I scored higher on Fastest Growing Economies - a metric I was very pleased to get a badge for.

Also I like having a high Economy stat because having a low one and RPing a high one seems a bit silly, even if it's technically reasonable.

[Novum Alexandria]

-snip-

As is evident by the GLORIOUS IMPERIAL ECONOMY, I have no fekking clue how NS stats/issues work.

[Vistora]

Also, I AM rather curious as towards the workings of NS' economics engine. My tax rate is one seventeenth of your own and I have a freer ("capitalizt", even) economy than yours, yet income inequality is somehow lower. iunno.

Well, I can tell you how to make a huge economy in NS:
1. Business Subsidies
2. Economic freedoms, except when it cuts business subsidies.

Economic inequality seems to be its own independent stat based on the text of the issue choices rather than actual economic simulation.
I've found myself able to control it on purpose, which is why mine is higher than yours - I'm aiming for a bottom 10% of probably 40,000 Ashkeros, and I've pushed the economy's income so high that I accidentally exceeded that. Interestingly, I scored higher on Fastest Growing Economies - a metric I was very pleased to get a badge for.

Also I like having a high Economy stat because having a low one and RPing a high one seems a bit silly, even if it's technically reasonable.

I do know how to control it, more or less, but the issues I need just don't come up frequently enough to do so. I dump money into education as much as possible, but there's only so much I can do.

[Vistora]

I see what you mean, and applaud you on your originality and creativity at the very least. That's the problem though, with choosing a realistic and feasible system; it's likely to be replicated heavily IRL.

I'll probably change the write-up to substitute Moar Technocracy for the previous economic layout. "Oh yeah, they just happen to have very high GDP while having this huge welfare state" seemed a bit too cheaty by itself. But, if Sweden can do $64k/cap in a year and still pull it off, then that kinda works. It makes Ashkera even more Statist too, which I consider to be an advantage in this case.

Another thing to consider is the fact that, despite popular perception, fiscal and economic policy are not entirely intertwined. Those north European countries actually have economies that are quite free and somewhat deregulated. Much of their economic equality results from moderate-to-heavy wealth redistribution via personal income taxes, then funneled through welfare programs. Not to mention the fact that companies and unions within said countries have a fairly harmonious relationship, as opposed to many other countries where they are often much more in conflict (hence the term "corporatist"). Whether or not this is a genuine partnership or merely an ongoing ceasefire over threats of mutually assured destruction depends on what you observe, but the effect is notable. Contrast this to, say, France, where compromise is often abandoned in preference for noisy conflict and banner-waving, hence their fondness for striking, as well as the various other South European countries. And of course, if one wishes to see an example of hard economic leftism's failures, well, turn your head to the east.

One thing I find ironic is that, despite economic/fiscal leftism generally being seen as a collectivist system, the countries that have most successfully implemented it are considered individualist. And vice-versa.