Right to Technonlogy

[Philimbesi]

The sale of the food would be set at a suitable price by the TBRC and the nation would be compelled to sell at that price until the debt was repayed. The "sale" that I was referring to there was sale internally.

The TBRC would be justified in cutting off supply of machines if the nation becomes unstable, or adopts a stance that is considered harmful to world peace, and other such things, I'm sure you can use your imagination.

Ah... None of that is in the law.


Also, now you've got WA gnomes setting the price for food grown in independent nations. That should go over well.

[Aegara]

I know but if this one doesn't pass then that is what I would be in it. I was just clarifying for you.

[Philimbesi]

I know but if this one doesn't pass then that is what I would be in it. I was just clarifying for you.

k

[Aegara]

They're not gnomes, that's so cruel! The correct term is bureaucratic dwarves

[Aegara]

The sale of the food would be set at a suitable price by the TBRC and the nation would be compelled to sell at that price until the debt was repayed. The "sale" that I was referring to there was sale internally.

The TBRC would be justified in cutting off supply of machines if the nation becomes unstable, or adopts a stance that is considered harmful to world peace, and other such things, I'm sure you can use your imagination.

Ah... None of that is in the law.


Also, now you've got WA gnomes setting the price for food grown in independent nations. That should go over well.

The food that wouldn't have been grown without the help of the WA so it deserves something in the way of payment

[Philimbesi]

They're not gnomes, that's so cruel! The correct term is bureaucratic dwarves

No ambassdor they are gnomes and unless you want very bad things to happen to you or your offices I'd take back calling them dwarves...

[Philimbesi]

The food that wouldn't have been grown without the help of the WA so it deserves something in the way of payment

Woah, there Ambassador Greenjeans. The WA is funded by the member nations, those member nations get that money from the people through taxes. Your suggesting we give out donated farming equipment, then force member nations to sell food to starving people at prices we set in order to pay us back for the farming equiptment we didn't pay for in the beginning?

[Aegara]

The food that wouldn't have been grown without the help of the WA so it deserves something in the way of payment

Woah, there Ambassador Greenjeans. The WA is funded by the member nations, those member nations get that money from the people through taxes. Your suggesting we give out donated farming equipment, then force member nations to sell food to starving people at prices we set in order to pay us back for the farming equiptment we didn't pay for in the beginning?

1. The farming equipment would not be donated.
2. Only surpluses would be sold so no one would be starving in the first place.

[The Realm of The Realm]

Ummm ... has it occurred to anyone that the reason those people aren't buying tractors, for example, is that it is not economic for them to do so.

Note -- I'm not saying they don't have the money to buy tractors, but that the tractors aren't worth having. If it is not economic to buy the tractors, then using resources to get someone else to pay for the tractors is still just as uneconomic.

IF it is economic, then there is no need to give the tractors to these people. Either provide direct loans and market-making (e.g. finance opening a dealership) or provide information to others who will do so on their own once they see the economic value of doing so.


Oh ... what might be some circumstances where a tractor isn't economically valuable? How about ... the tractor would destroy carefully hand-cultivated rice beds developed over decades ... or, the diesel fumes would ruin the taste of the tea ... or, the tractor would have no diesel fuel available to run ... or, cheap labor is available to do the job at a lower (economic) cost than getting a tractor: perhaps getting a tractor will put ten people out of work, and as result thirty people will starve.

This proposal should be printed out on a single page; shredded; and flushed down the toilet: it lacks even the most rudimentary understanding of economics and its premises and construction are based on [FAIL].

[Aegara]

Thank you for you comment Honourable Ambassador (and I use the world hounourable loosely) it seems to me as though it is you who does not know the premise of my argument. So here it is in flow diagram form:

WA Money ---> Agricultural Equipment ---> Improved Crop Yields ---> More surplus crops

<----- Money back into General Fund Better quality of life


^< ----------------------------------------- More money -- More taxes

You'll have to imagine lines going from surplus crops to Money back to general fund. And from improved crop yields to better quality of like then to more money and more taxes

[Meekinos]

Hounorable Ambassador Meekinos I am suggesting that these machines are given free, but maybe repayments in the form of the food surplus at "bargain basement prices."

Which is silly.

Some nations have advance, sophisticated equipment. To give it away would be astronomical in cost due to a number of factors, such as:
1) The people receiving may require training and it would mean the nation supplying would have to also pay to train these people. It would be an unnecessary burden on the tax payers of the nation.

2) Not only would basic training be required, but there would need to be someone who can handle maintenance and repairs. If parts of the equipment break down, is the nation that provided it also to provide the replacement? The cost along would bankrupt those who are struggling.

3) Equipment breaks down and when it stops working, it stops working. A replacement would be needed. Are they going to come begging again for more?

Would it not be better to change the resolution to have this be a sharing of knowledge, which can be adopted to the needs of the receiver? Knowledge is far superior and more valuable to material goods because the material goods would be worthless without the know-how.

Give a person a fish, they each for a day; teach a person to fish, they will eat for life.

What you are suggesting would create an incredible dependency.

[Philimbesi]

The food that wouldn't have been grown without the help of the WA so it deserves something in the way of payment

Woah, there Ambassador Greenjeans. The WA is funded by the member nations, those member nations get that money from the people through taxes. Your suggesting we give out donated farming equipment, then force member nations to sell food to starving people at prices we set in order to pay us back for the farming equiptment we didn't pay for in the beginning?

1. The farming equipment would not be donated.
2. Only surpluses would be sold so no one would be starving in the first place.

Hounorable Ambassador Meekinos I am suggesting that these machines are given free,

so I translate that to donated equipment... so apparently now it's what.. stolen?

[Aegara]

Hounorable Ambassador Meekinos I am suggesting that these machines are given free, but maybe repayments in the form of the food surplus at "bargain basement prices."

Which is silly.

Some nations have advance, sophisticated equipment. To give it away would be astronomical in cost due to a number of factors, such as:
1) The people receiving may require training and it would mean the nation supplying would have to also pay to train these people. It would be an unnecessary burden on the tax payers of the nation.

2) Not only would basic training be required, but there would need to be someone who can handle maintenance and repairs. If parts of the equipment break down, is the nation that provided it also to provide the replacement? The cost along would bankrupt those who are struggling.

3) Equipment breaks down and when it stops working, it stops working. A replacement would be needed. Are they going to come begging again for more?

Would it not be better to change the resolution to have this be a sharing of knowledge, which can be adopted to the needs of the receiver? Knowledge is far superior and more valuable to material goods because the material goods would be worthless without the know-how.

Give a person a fish, they each for a day; teach a person to fish, they will eat for life.

What you are suggesting would create an incredible dependency.

1+2. The subject of teaching has already been covered and it is hoped that in time, after some starting aid of course, that recipient countries would beging to manufacture replacement parts /train other citizens.

3. There would be no individual nations who "own" the machines once they have been donated and they would go into a "collective pot" that would then be re-distributed. Education at the "first stage" would be provided by the WA and would then would be the responsibility of the member states to train the "second and further stages" who would be educated by the "first stage" of people who had been taught about these things.

[Aegara]

The technology would be given to the recieving nations, they would be bought by the WA or donated by member states who wish to do so of their own volition.

[The Realm of The Realm]

Thank you for you comment Honourable Ambassador (and I use the world hounourable loosely) ...

I apologize for the ... vigor ... and for the ... bluntness ... of my previous remarks. But no amount of wishful thinking will salvage your proposal, flow diagram not withstanding.

Nevertheless:
IF a tractor has a positive economic value in some situation ... then there are better ways to accelerate the adoption of tractors: creating markets, repair and maintenance infrastructure, access to financing that is adapted to the circumstances, etc. Free tractors are a waste of resources and a distortion of the economics if the tractor has a positive economic value in the first place. In most cases, all that is needed is to provide information about the opportunity and someone (Komatsu, Caterpillar, etc.) will show up to strike a bargain ... a good, honest and fair bargain, since the use of a tractor is economically justified.

BUT
IF a tractor does not have positive economic value in some situation, NOTHING you do with respect to giving tractors away, free or not, with a generous repayment plan or not, etc. financed by WA taxes or not, etc. will do anything to make the tractor economically feasible; some samples of the reasons already given above. Instead, focus your effort on funding things like infrastructure, that are not the economic decisions of individuals, but represent a "technology commons".

Loaning someone money to buy a tractor that has a negative economic value is NOT doing that person a favor. Neither is giving them a tractor, unless they're going to just sell it or salvage it for parts for something else.

Creating a government bureaucracy to "give" tractors to people when it is already economically justified is ridiculous -- the market will normally provide exactly as many tractors as have a positive economic value. Centrally planned economies are FAIL, proved most recently in the now demised USSR.

If you give every poor person in the world $1000 US today, they will, overall, be just as poor in three weeks as they are today. (There will be some momentary spasms and economic dislocations / irrational behavior, and, like winning the lottery, there is some chance an individual here or there will pull themselves up from poverty as a result. But there will be as many worse off as those better off.)

Giving them tractors is just ... ungraceful and economically boneheaded naive. Sorry, couldn't stop myself on that last bit ...

[Rutianas]

1+2. The subject of teaching has already been covered and it is hoped that in time, after some starting aid of course, that recipient countries would beging to manufacture replacement parts /train other citizens.

3. There would be no individual nations who "own" the machines once they have been donated and they would go into a "collective pot" that would then be re-distributed. Education at the "first stage" would be provided by the WA and would then would be the responsibility of the member states to train the "second and further stages" who would be educated by the "first stage" of people who had been taught about these things.

My first point. The Republic is an advanced tech Empire. We have strict laws against sharing technology with those nations that are not close enough to our own level. We would certainly resent having to teach another nation how to use and then manufacture the equipment that we use. We're not even sure that they could manufacture the equipment, considering that the majority of it is fueled from crystals and constructed of metals that we've only found on two moons in our primary system. So, should we allow them access to our territory to mine these materials? That may require giving them access to space flight and rift travel. Why? You'd be asking nations who have a Prime Directive type of law to go against that law. Why?

Point two. There are some nations who choose not to use technology. Why should we force them to use it? Heck, we have a few settlements that choose not to use any of our technology. They want to live simply. It's one thing for us to offer them clothing and basic staples. It'd be another thing to say 'Here, have some technological farm equipment, courtesy of the WA.' Why?

The economic reasoning you have used is not good enough to convince me. All I see is mass production being pushed. One thing that we have noticed is that with Mass Production the quality of products begin to suffer. Why should we force nations who pride themselves on quality to suffer then? It may be that they have tourists that love the quality of the food because it's hand picked or whatever. That nation may lose money in tourism because the quality has suffered. In other words, convince me some other way.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Aegara]

1. Honourable Ambassador Rutianas the WA will only use conventional tractors, not ones that operate using crystals or as-of-yet-undiscovered-anywhere-but-your-two-moons-metals so there is no need to give up any mining rights.

2. Technology is not "forced" upon anyone, merely to people who, after submitting a request to the TRBC, have their case reviewed and then accepted.

3. There are no "products" as such, no toys or TVs, the main by products would be crops, and it is hard to see how their quality can be diminished by providing better seeding/harvesting techniques. As for the number of tourists that only eat hand picked foods... I would think that there would be no significant losses from these people taking their business elsewhere.

[Secruss]

Can't we just convert the undeveloped countries into slave tended, tobacco plantations?

[Aegara]

I'm pretty sure everone on the planet will be dead within a few years with that much tobacco knocking around the place...

[Meekinos]

1+2. The subject of teaching has already been covered and it is hoped that in time, after some starting aid of course, that recipient countries would beging to manufacture replacement parts /train other citizens.

3. There would be no individual nations who "own" the machines once they have been donated and they would go into a "collective pot" that would then be re-distributed. Education at the "first stage" would be provided by the WA and would then would be the responsibility of the member states to train the "second and further stages" who would be educated by the "first stage" of people who had been taught about these things.

As the ambassador for Rutianas has pointed out, not all resources used are readily available. Meekinos, a colony in itself, is approximately 25 light years away from the nearest known T3 class planet, which some know as 'earth'. Not all our resources are natural, and those which are, are in finite quantities. Not all natural resources which we have can be perfectly replicated and our technology is struggling to compensate.

As for the second point... why would broken down machines, which don't work period be used for anything other than salvaging the scrap material from them?

[Aegara]

Honourable Ambassador Meekinos whilst I respect the vast distances involved, no one is compelling you to either give or recieve technology sent under the scheme. However I do presume that you pay taxes into the WA general fund. This is the only way that you will be affected by this resolution.

Secondly who said anything about these tractors etc. being broken/worthless? I would hope that they were not considering the money that the WA is paying to have them manufactured.

[Rutianas]

1. Honourable Ambassador Rutianas the WA will only use conventional tractors, not ones that operate using crystals or as-of-yet-undiscovered-anywhere-but-your-two-moons-metals so there is no need to give up any mining rights.

What I said was that we hadn't found any other source. Not that there was no other source. For all we know, you have the same stuff and we don't know it. As for using only conventional tractors, good. This resolution has no effect on us then. Thank you.

2. Technology is not "forced" upon anyone, merely to people who, after submitting a request to the TRBC, have their case reviewed and then accepted.

Good. I'd hate to see the WA forcing things upon people.

Oh... wait... we do it all the time. What am I thinking......

3. There are no "products" as such, no toys or TVs, the main by products would be crops, and it is hard to see how their quality can be diminished by providing better seeding/harvesting techniques. As for the number of tourists that only eat hand picked foods... I would think that there would be no significant losses from these people taking their business elsewhere.

You completely misunderstood my point. I have no intention of trying to make it again. I'm not even sure I should have attempted in the first place. The Noble Ambassador from The Realm of The Realm attempted once, though in a different way. It was completely missed then.

Oh ... what might be some circumstances where a tractor isn't economically valuable? How about ... the tractor would destroy carefully hand-cultivated rice beds developed over decades ... or, the diesel fumes would ruin the taste of the tea ... or, the tractor would have no diesel fuel available to run ... or, cheap labor is available to do the job at a lower (economic) cost than getting a tractor: perhaps getting a tractor will put ten people out of work, and as result thirty people will starve.

In short, even though points one and two are addressed, the fact that the ambassador missed the third point has sealed my opposition to this. Of course, should this get to vote, the Republic and my Region will determine my vote.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Flibbleites]

What'll it be!? Bob looks like he wants it... quick, make me an offer!

You must be talking about some other Bob, I have no need for a tractor.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Aegara]

Oh ... what might be some circumstances where a tractor isn't economically valuable? How about ... the tractor would destroy carefully hand-cultivated rice beds developed over decades ... or, the diesel fumes would ruin the taste of the tea ... or, the tractor would have no diesel fuel available to run ... or, cheap labor is available to do the job at a lower (economic) cost than getting a tractor: perhaps getting a tractor will put ten people out of work, and as result thirty people will starve.

1. I think you mean the so called "rice terraces" which are inaccessable by tratcor anyway so no difference would be made to those. If you do mean rice paddies then there are no adverse effects by harvesters on the rice paddies and they are regularly used in industrialised countries.

2. Tea is not considered a staple crop and but in answer to your point there have been some studies into pollution vs. pollution free and they show no discernable taste differences.

3. A tractor not only requires the one main user. It requires mechanics, people who would make the spare part etc. This would probably employ those ten people who lost their jobs, and they would most likely be paid more money anyway.

[Rutianas]

Oh ... what might be some circumstances where a tractor isn't economically valuable? How about ... the tractor would destroy carefully hand-cultivated rice beds developed over decades ... or, the diesel fumes would ruin the taste of the tea ... or, the tractor would have no diesel fuel available to run ... or, cheap labor is available to do the job at a lower (economic) cost than getting a tractor: perhaps getting a tractor will put ten people out of work, and as result thirty people will starve.

1. I think you mean the so called "rice terraces" which are inaccessable by tratcor anyway so no difference would be made to those. If you do mean rice paddies then there are no adverse effects by harvesters on the rice paddies and they are regularly used in industrialised countries.

2. Tea is not considered a staple crop and but in answer to your point there have been some studies into pollution vs. pollution free and they show no discernable taste differences.

3. A tractor not only requires the one main user. It requires mechanics, people who would make the spare part etc. This would probably employ those ten people who lost their jobs, and they would most likely be paid more money anyway.

1. We have rice fields that we do not use harvesters on for the exact reason that The Realm of The Realm mentioned. The weight of the machine would harm the land. We're also industrialised.

2. Where are you getting your information? I'd like to see these studies. We've done our own. Tea is a staple crop in the Republic. It's drunk with every meal and in between some. We've also done pollution vs non-pollution tests, and our taste testers tell us that they can tell the difference. They've also been able to tell the difference between organic foods and those who use chemical pest control methods.

3. Why are you pushing for people to get industrialized anyway? Why do you care if they choose to remain ignorant of technology? In any case, you may have to make it clear that even if the nation's government wants these tractors, they cannot force the farmers to use them. Seriously, you could have old Farmer Brown who has refused all kinds of technology because he just doesn't want to change. Why should he be forced to?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador