I was absolutely trash at it, but I loved it. And to be honest, I thought it was just a very hard game to begin with. There is only so much you can do to manage your shields, weapons, and position before the ship becomes overwhelmed.
I think if you need to be payed to be loyal to Starfleet/The Federation, that kinda is a deal breaker given the philosophy of personal growth and societal enrichment.
Complete tangent, it’s probably not too hard to get around the limits of a replicator if they prohibit or limit alcohol. Presumably you could have it create all the supplies needed for fermentation and make your own batch.
It would take a bit, but you’d have as much as you’d ever want.
Overall seems to give a good picture how Treconomics, but I think he is wrong a in a few ways. The first being private property. There is definitely personal property, but no private property as “business” like the Sisko Family Restaurant and Picard’s vineyard aren’t charging anything from what we can tell. They operate like their customers are family, and you’re visiting them to eat/drink with/etc and then go home.
The second is his labeling of The Federation as a technically capitalist society. I don’t think that’s the case, as corporations don’t seem to exist aside from the ones that are owned and operated outside of Federation space. There are family “business”, but they don’t have stocks or a stock market. And because the “businesses” that do exist don’t charge or make profit, I don’t think it can be considered capitalist.
And they are indeed credited to and debited from each citizen’s “account.” However, the average citizen doesn’t even notice it, though the government does, and again, it is not measured in currency units — definitely not Federation Credits.
I think this idea of each Federation citizen having a welfare account is probably wrong. I think it’s more likely that it’s just assumed that you won’t abuse the replicators/transporters, with a set limit of how much of something a user can use it.
So you can maybe replicate only a handful of basketballs a day, a couple hundred hotdogs, etc. But there is an inbuilt limit to the machine and electricity provided to your home. But it’s not an account.
Sure, I agree that there is absolutely somebody/some governing body controlling and tracking energy use. But again, no personal account.
As for the rest of what he said there, I am pretty much in full agreement.
It boggles my mind how my conservative father even remotely thinks anything positive about star trek, let alone being obsessed with it.
Steve absolutely nailed it. Though I think his 4th point about optimism being a core part of star trek was missing a subsection. Almost all of the characters, and especially the ones the show wants you to root for have shit loads of empathy for the people around them, and often times it even extends to outright enemies.
Whenever a crew member is losing control of their behavior because of a mind control space entity, the crew’s first reaction is a level of concern people only have for close family members. When Sisko is doing arguably immoral acts for the greater good, he is wracked with grief and empathy for those he had to hurt. Janeway on the other hand just wants her coffee lol.
If you think this description sounds suspiciously like Paradox Interactive’s Stellaris with a Star Trek Prime Directive attached, you’re not wrong. The mechanics of advancing your faction and winning the game (militarily, economically, or diplomatically) are nearly identical, and fans of Stellaris will recognize the game’s style in Infinite’s assets and artwork.
Read some theory, it kinda sounds like you’re basing this entirely off of YouTube videos you’ve seen (including your understanding of socialism)
If you want to convince me, mocking me isn’t the way to go about it. I’m as much of a leftist/anti-capitalist as it gets in my area, and I almost certainly agree with you on more things than the average american. If you can’t even hold a civil conversation with me, how could you ever hope to convince anybody else?
But yes, most of this is based on a rather light understanding as I have already mentioned. I live in the U.S., a capitalist country that very intentionally does not allow workers to have free time. I have a disabled girlfriend that I take care of. The amount of time I have to myself that is truly free time is extremely limited. I’d rather spend that time playing video games and watching youtube than reading economics books. It’s shocking, I know. And during the rare times that I am able to find the time/energy to read, I’d rather read science fiction, which rarely if ever goes into economic theory.
Landlords increase rent to make up for it, what does georgism do? Landlords don’t exist as such in socialism, but how they do exist still isn’t really impacted by this shift.
Again, they can’t exactly just increase rent to pass off the tax.
The lack of massive investment of housing and zoning are, again, results of a problem not the problem itself. These issues don’t exist with good planning
How is investment in housing and zoning fixes not a form of better planning?
georgism is just irrelevant except as a bandage for some of the ills of capitalism temporarily
I disagree that it is just a bandage. But even if it was, I’d rather have a bandage than a fucking open wound like we have now.
If the government doesn’t collect wealth in the form of a land tax, how do you suggest we do it?
That’s not true because housing is not the only form of wealth.
I could profitably buy a plot of land and use it to store pig feces which happens in North Carolina.
And did I say I approve of that? No. That’s why it is a whataboutism fallacy. The topic is housing. Pointing out other horrible ways to use land doesn’t change the fact that the current housing situation is bullshit.
They aren’t selling something the person could otherwise afford or even want to buy.
More people could afford to own their house if not for landlords hoarding the supply.
I know contractors that built houses and eventually built one and rented it out for additional income.
You’ve never had to clean up a house destroyed by drug addicts. Believe me they can do a ton of damage. There’s plenty of risk. No one in this thread understands that though.
This is again a rare case.
I wonder if the macroeconomic factors could play into that? You know? Stagnating wages, a falling dollar, endless wars, cronyism, endless immigration, enriching Blackrock during the 2008 bank crisis so that it can single handedly buy more single-family homes than any other entity in American history. Nope it’s Jim from work that rents a condo.
It’s all of the above. Landlords are a part of the problem, and I never once said they are the sole problem.
In some versions of socialism, not all. And technically in a georgist system, depending on implementation, all land is considered the governments land, it’s owned by the common people. From there individuals pay society for exclusivity to a plot.
It would only have a minor impact based on the size of your house+yard, nothing more. It’s in no way progressing us towards socialism.
I’m not an economist, so my understanding is limited, but my understanding is that a LVT results in the landlords themselves paying the tax instead of tennants. The end result is a giant hit to the wallets of landlords across the country. That’s a very good thing, and does indeed get us closer to socialism. Less landlords, less landlord power, the better.
Additionally, even if it only slightly effects land use efficiency (which I disagree that it would be slight) any increase in efficiency will increase the proportion of land that is for sale and therefore reduce prices.
And keep in mind, this is only part of the solution, not the sole solution. Zoning still needs to be fixed and there needs to be massive government investments into co-op housing developments.