Avatar
Comte de Sats Germain
55f573b651eff351db57b0601d23022d8c532f9825db10a5733ebf39be4aa21b
A concrescence of Mind fumbling with the controls of this meat chariot. Nostr onl

Both. There's a lot that would have to go into this, and its all correlated. Maybe infrastructure is where the communist side gains an advantage and has a chance to win.

Imagine a country where everyone owns land, uses 3d printers for most needs, uses #bitcoin, grows with #permaculture, and is well armed...

What tyrant is gonna try messing with that? What invader is gonna take their land?

This is the foundation for world peace.

I think ultimately war is what determines if capitalism is superior to communism - an efficient market should, in the long run and over many iterations, make war easier to conduct because it makes more resources available and allocating them according to the highest need - high demand pays more, and more money thrown at a good causes more of that good to be made.

But communists can just mass produce the armaments for war and win, if they start at the same level of tech and innovation pauses. After winning, they fall apart and end up using death camps to fix their inefficiency, but that doesn't save the capitalists...

Idk. Distilling this down to a game is difficult. Using true principles while highlighting the differences of two incompatible systems... I think the key game element has to be innovation, but beyond that, too hard.

Replying to Avatar SuiGenerisJohn

Idea for a game: Communists vs Capitalist. Two players. You can either pick the side of the central planner, or the free market. The capital are a limited set of resources set in a limited resource environment to make the math easier. Think energy, consumables, capital assets each with perhaps one subset tier of item, e.g., expensive scarces fuel and cheap abundant fuel; cheap low utility consummables and expensive high utility fuels, all with various weights, etc. Both sides can control certain different policy settings, e.g., focus on population growth and comption, or focus on defense against external threats like war or disease, etc. These policy weights incentivize the allocation of capital and consumption perhaps controlled by taxes and/or other incentivizations. Each side gets the same set of npcs, each with various incentive profiles, risk takers and risk adverse, prestige v. anonymity, etc. The goal of the game is to, at the end of a set time limit, have the most stable population to net asset ratio, i.e., if the trend lines were drawn to infinity population vs resources and assets would not directionally be trending to zero.

As the central planner you have complete control over the allocation of capital by the agents (npcs in the game). In otherwords you can directly override their default incentives by dictatorial decree and therefore impose your will on how resources are allocated to different tasks. However, the game can't be paused and operates like an active simulation in real time and so you have to constantly watch the societies resources and modify the allocation of resources to account for issues in real time.

As the free market sovereign you cannot direct the actions of agents other than by modfying the policies that impinge on agents incentives.

Thoughts? #gamestr #asknostr #gfy

Video game or table game? I'm a capitalist, but I think the commies would win this.

Imagine what you could do with a yurt... All you need is land and a yurt. Its a seed ; it grows.

There sure is a lot of doomsday theater. And it's working. People are terrified. Suicide is up, population growth is negative.

And it all works towards one end - control. Just like the CBDC Saylor is pushing for. Mark of the Beast.

Oh, I guess I missed that part. I traced it back to a member of the "royal family" (yuuuuge criminal organization)

Oh man... I would love to move to Spain. Or Italy. But I'm not putting myself at the mercy of the EU