So, how about that Omega war dec?

iMag can hardly complain, nobody will attack them!

What if iMag went to war and nobody noticed?

I did, of course, hit the re-captcha button. I'm not an idiot.

Marshall -- why would the game be using foreign language captchas that our keyboards cannot easily enter? I would have been equally surprised by japanese, german or chinese captchas that I couldn't type.

Check this out:

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/6922/captchalj.png

They ought to just rename it back from the Department of Defense to its old name, the Department of War....

Property taxes indirectly tax everyone. Everyone lives somewhere. Just because you rent doesn't mean you aren't paying property taxes -- its in your rent.

Property taxes are mostly used to support the services of local government (cities, counties) which support the population which lives on that land. Having revenue based on property taxes also properly aligns the interest of the state/local gov't in increasing the standard of living (and thus property values) in their geography.

Also, property taxes are harder to evade. Income tax and Sales tax are both frequently evaded with cash, barter, black market, under the counter, etc. transactions. When was the last time you gave/paid someone cash that they most likely didn't declare as income? I'll bet it wasn't long ago.

Property taxes also have the benefit of real collateral in the case of a failure to pay. Someone who owes back taxes can leave the country and perhaps never be caught. Their property isn't going anywhere though and can be confiscated.

I think there are lots of good reasons for property taxes. They are structured differently in different jurisdictions though, so I am sure we can point to better or worse implementations depending on your views of progressive or regressive taxation, incentive tax policy, etc.

Chaoswind: No, if it gets FA'd tons of stuff then it just went from being Jesus to being the Catholic Church.

Having a Ph.D. does not require you to use the title Dr. or even tell anyone about it. Hurting your job prospects comes from if you are taking 5 years off from a profession and thus not being current/experienced versus others who spent that time working in the field.

This book was recommended to me by a Ph.D. on the topic:

http://amzn.to/qzcQat

Example alternatives to "owning a vehicle":

Live / work / shop in a smaller area.
Walk.
Bike.
Public transit.
Private transit (taxi, shuttle, sedan, limo, bus).
Telecommute and have other necessities delivered.
Rent a vehicle when needed.
Ride-share.

Just because the above don't appeal to you does not make them invalid.

DH: This is getting amusing. Ok, so you are saying that when an inevitable fight for scarce resources comes about, the countries without those scarce resources are stronger because they get to be the aggressors against the countries with stockpiles of it? So it doesn't matter how resource rich a country is compared to another, you believe that just "being a target" makes you weak?

OMG, I agree with DH on this one!

At least, I also wouldn't expect the US to intervene. We'll be there, hanging out in the Mediterranean, but we need Turkey's continued support against Syria right now much more than we care if a flotilla reaches Palestine or not.

Heck, you would think with Turkey-Syria relations at a historic low this would be a great time for Israel to play nice with Turkey and work for change in Syria. But that would be too logical....

DH: how do you figure that? Assuming your prediction were true, how does having a stockpile of oil make us weaker in a fight for scarce resources?

DH: $4 was an arbitrary number I picked. The ratio was the point, not the price. I'm sorry that wasn't clear for you.

The Republicans are all for continued subsidies for the oil industry via tax breaks, exploration incentives, etc. etc.

People certainly CAN afford $4 gas, as it has been above $4 recently and gas was still selling just fine. Where I am right now it is $3.39 today.

I work from home and my wife, who does commute, drives a hybrid. Those decisions ARE influenced by the price of gas. You ask "why can't we get more energy efficient and still keep the cost down?" -- that's a basic economics question. Some technologies have to reach scale before they reach cost efficiency. So, while current energy efficiency technologies might not make sense for the average consumer or company to implement with $3 / gallon gas, they do make sense to implement with $4 or $5 per gallon gas. As those technologies are more broadly adopted, improved, and scaled, the relative costs of them come down.

Alter_Ego - several posts up I provided mine:

"My personal preference for a compromise has been to go back to the agreed Oslo Peace Accord and the lines that were drawn then."

I'm not saying every party would be happy with that solution. In fact, in most compromises no party is entirely happy with the solution. But this is one that I would support.

I would also support getting all of the Israelis out of Israel and giving them land here in the United States and/or in Europe. I just think that solution is even less realistic than the one above.

DH: I think you misunderstand the way that the economics-based side of the Dem's would see the issue. Dems don't "want" high oil prices. Here are the more accurate pieces:

1. Dems don't believe we should "subsidize" oil to artificially lower than market prices because that would encourage energy inefficiency.

2. Dems generally favor taxation on oil / gas because it serves a dual purpose of driving energy efficiency and generating revenue. Dems would not prefer $4 / gallon of gas where $3.90 is the market price and $0.10 is tax. They would prefer $4 per gallon gas where $2.50 is the market price and $1.50 is tax. Taxes are then used to invest in infrastructure, energy R&D, public transit (especially energy efficient public transit), etc.

3. Dems don't believe we should blow our local oil stockpiles in the face of a future worldwide shortage or boycott foreign oil which would result in foreign oil prices dropping for other countries.

Caveat - I don't speak for all Dems, just the ones I know. ;)

I have always believed that what was done to the Native American population was terrible. That being said, we have done far more for that population here (whether it is *enough* or not being another debate) than Israel has done for the Palestinians.

+1 iNouda, well said.

Regarding the local oil reserves, Earth Empires provides a great view of this. Oil prices are going to continue to rise and the world supply decreases and the cost to get at what remains increases. So, would you harvest and sell all your oil now and then buy from the public market later or would you buy from the public market now and let the value of your stock continue to rise knowing that you'll have it later when you might need it and supply is tight?

Walking away from buying foreign oil would be a huge favor to the Chinese, who are working very hard to lock up energy sources through 50-100 year contracts all around the world right now. Lots of activity on that front in Africa by the Chinese.

Back to Israel / Palestine. iNouda summed it up very well. My personal preference for a compromise has been to go back to the agreed Oslo Peace Accord and the lines that were drawn then. Israel claims that is "impossible" because of their ever-expanding settlements that have continued to displace the Palestinians after they signed that accord. They claim this continued expansion was justified and that accord was nullified because of attacks by the Palestinians. That is BS, IMHO.

My ideal would be for people to get their heads out of the collective asses where they are blinded by their religion. Israel has some of the most well educated and well financed people in the world. They could build a much more successful and less threatened society almost anywhere else in the world if they weren't so enamored with that particular piece of land. the Palestinians were not only their first, but they are much less mobile or capable of successful relocation.

Heh, I had bought three of his books before I even saw this thread.

This isn't censorship. This is about decisions by several major publishers that the risk of lost sales across their entire portfolio due to a religiously motivated backlash against them as a publisher > the profit opportunity from this one book. Its a basic business decision.

The guy is free to publish his works with any other publisher who sees that equation differently, or to self-publish. Nothing is stopping US libraries or schools (AFAIK) from carrying the book published by a Canadian publisher in our local libraries. Nothing is preventing it from being sold.

He's just using the refusal by some publishers to publish his book to stir up attention and drive sales. In my case, it worked. Without the controversy (which I really ignore) I wouldn't have even been aware there were books published for a young audience on scientific inquiry and skepticism. (this book is about evolution, but his others are more generally about skepticism).

diez: Not sure what you are suggesting there... are you saying that Americans should have some sort of right of return to Europe and the ability to take land there back from anyone who has occupied it since our ancestors left? The ability to come back to Europe and demand our own state be provided?

My assertion was that if *we* felt the Jews deserved their own state, *we* should have provided it on land *we* owned, rather than saying "yeah, you deserve it, go take their land and we'll back you up".

Of course, the above statement is very amusing considering this is the Alliance forum on Earth Empires and that is essentially how alliances here operate. ;)

DH: I think your assertion about the Germans in the ME "They lost it to the Germans, we took it, then gave it away." is way off base. You seem to be discounting the role of the Ottoman Empire entirely. They were allied to Germany, but they weren't part of it.

I believe this is a pretty good summary, though anyone could take issue with parts of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...80%93Palestinian_conflict

As for another of your statements: "Yes we did "create" that "state" for the Jews after WW2. It was due to the fact that the Germans and others had displaced MILLIONS of Jews (not counting the ones they killed) during the war. So, the Jews needed their own state."

Yes, very very convenient for the West to give the Jews their much needed state on SOMEONE ELSE'S LAND. Seriously, we have so much extra land here in N.A., why didn't we create a state for them here? OH YES, that takes us back to the conflict that pre-dated your 100-year view. The Jews didn't want just ANY state, they wanted their state RIGHT THERE because of those 1000s of years of history you wanted to overlook.

IMHO, we should have given the Jews something like Montana. (no particular reason for picking Montana, and I'm sorry if I offend anyone from there). They could have lived in peace and built a new Jerusalem... Of course, coming from someone who doesn't believe the Old Testament is the word of God, I really don't care where they think they need to be before the end of the world.

DH - "From what i have seen they have been attacked since their country was created."

Yeah, about that.... that would be the main source of contention. When "their country was created" nobody bothered to ask the people who lived there.

Did I hear MD being summoned to a booze fest?

LoL... ok, no need to get worked up about it. I'm not demanding a war dec, it just usually comes before a "policing" note.

After all, you are posting a "policing" note for the community, but there is nothing to tell anyone why you are policing. Nothing to state publicly that there is even a war on.

Of course we all know what's going on, so it isn't "needed"... its just nice... polite... and "tradition".

"tradition"

Why is EVO policing for NA? I haven't even seen a war dec yet...

Jeez what has become of tradition?

Already 5 kills in the FS and no war dec. It had better be worth the wait!

hanlong - that's why we are playing earth on cell phones... b/c 66 mb is still a lot there. ;)

Incidentally... why 66 MB??? WTF? should be 64.

They also had a major emigration wave following that crisis... ~10,000 people per year for a couple years... that doesn't sound like much, but when you only have 320,000 people, two years of that is 1 out of every 16 people leaving.

And those that left were those who had the means to do so and make a living elsewhere, who weren't tied down by underwater real estate, etc.

Still, I think Iceland will be better off in the end having declared bankruptcy and rebuilding from within.

herpes? Wait, I thought this game was like heroin...

All the FA's should start an EE Google+ Hangout that people can pop into and out of at any time. It supports audio/video sharing too, so it could be more fun.

LoL... good opening move there Marshal. ;)

Mother Nature's Irene Division FS'd the NE FTW! NE powerless to CS.

Where are the servers anyway?

Foxconn?

http://news.cnet.com/.../just-how-big-is-foxconn/

Then again, not without their problems, of course...

http://gizmodo.com/...rom-foxconns-hell-factory

by now you could have in-game messaged all their countries.

Back to the topic at hand...

I think their are too many assumptions associated with the terminology of "One World Government". I do not think there is likely to be one government wit absolute control over every aspect of society worldwide.

However, there could be more of a federation where the world comes together under one monetary union, which would need a central bank authority to manage that aspect.

We could also see certain policies become accepted worldwide (anti-land mine treaty, human rights, global environmental issues) in the future and potentially some global system of enforcement that all nations sign on to. We are close to that already in many ways, but we are certainly not at 100% participation (WTO, multi-national accords / treaties, etc.).

Free movement of capital, goods and labor is still much much further away, IMHO. We won't be under a single common religion any time soon.

So for a theoretical take -- I believe Earth could come under a single government in the future. But only when Earth is not the only human location in the universe. That is so far out in the future that I hardly care. ;)

Inconsistency again... Paraphrasing...

on the one hand: "We should let the wealthy keep more of their money because they have demonstrated they know how to put it to the best use"

on the other hand: "Why are we listening to this incredibly wealthy and arguably most successful investor in history about the most effective use of money?"

CK: It will be interesting to see if your political views are identical 30-40 years from now as they are today. Unfortunately, I just cannot stand to listen to you that long.

Only 4 members left?

Overnight turrets sold out, so this problem looks to be fixed.

@trumper - a lot of that is related to extended life expectancy and higher cost of care later in life. Life expectancy has gone up by 5-10 years since 1970. That doesn't sound like much as a part of a person's life, but you have to look at the change in "life after retirement". If you start collecting most entitlement benefits at 65, we have more than doubled the amount of "life after retirement" across the population.

http://www.cdc.gov/...nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_21.pdf

Look many pages down for the 1970 - 2006 life expectancy by gender/race chart.

I tend to support raising the age (some of which is already planned).

Maybe a better question would be to ask why this delay is here to begin with, and why it is 4-5 hours? Was this also tied to server load/performance back in the 90s, or is there a specific game mechanic it is trying to serve?

Rockman, no, that wasn't what I meant. The point would be to be able to play turns both before and after the market sale. For example, you might have standing orders that bought something overnight, you then want to turn the sale on those before playing your turns. Or, you want to produce something with turns, then turn the sale on them, then play more turns.

Ideally you want to be able to do all of this in the 6-hour window that is outside the 18-hour dark period.

Removing the 18-hour bonus is another option to get rid of the problem. That would lead to people being more frequently logged in. My concern there is that it also makes it harder to surprise opponents while Earth is out of their frame of mind. (Game Dynamic).

The 4-5 hour market delay in Alliance is excessive, IMHO.

If someone is trying to play at the same time window each day, this is quite frustrating. If you put stuff on the market as soon as you log in, it takes 5 hrs to arrive, you have 1 hour to "play" after the sale. You have to log off then in order to get the 18 hour bonus and log back in at the same time the next day.

I believe the time for goods to arrive on the market should be shortened to the 2-4 hour range.

-1 to this suggestion.

Here is why...

This was originally conceived of as a way to address server load issues under Mehul's setup. But now it is a part of the game mechanic. Essentially, you are incenting people to stay logged out, which increases the opportunity to catch them by surprise and kill their country.

Without the bonus we might have a higher instance of botting / scripting for people staying logged into their country. But even without that concern, it is just a good idea to force someone to choose between losing a bonus advantage and logging in to take an action.

IMHO, the 4-5 hour delay for goods to hit the market is a worse issue... making a separate post about that.

Just to clarify, I don't think we need 10-year budgets, but it would sure be nice to have a coherent 10-year plan at least...

There was a citation about Hong Kong being communist, which is amusing. I was there in 1996 right before it was handed back from the British Empire to the Chinese. The Chinese extended semi-autonomous rule for another 50 years (the same term as the original deal with the British). They are not afraid to plan in 50-year increments. But Hong Kong is not like the rest of China.

CKHustler: I never used the word "always". But Government is there to do things that are in the public interest and not easily handled by the private sector. We've seen countless examples of bad corporate behavior that was only checked by government intervention.

Examples: NRC, EPA, FDA, DoJ and industry regulatory bodies like the FCC, FAA, etc. Whether you agree with ALL of their policies or not is not the issue. What is the issue is a suggestion that we can just "abolish" these things in favor of some idealistic laissez faire system.

The Halliburton example was because a substantial portion of their revenues come from foreign governments and markets -- conflict of interest example. American consumers don't have any voice in what they do or don't do. If you argue that they do because the U.S. Government is a major customer and the U.S. Government is accountable to the people -- then you just suggested our elected officials listen to the people, contradicting your own argument.

Do you know anyone who works for the government? Do you really think they all go to work just thinking about how to screw over joe public?

CKHustler - MY post was full of logical flaws???

"They are both worried about job security over anything else."... Umm, this is like saying that a person stealing food and a person working for the income to buy it are just the same because "they are both worried about feeding their family over anything else."... Your logic there makes no sense.

"CEO's are beholden to the public to purchase his goods, a politician is beholden to votes." Another major logical flaw. A CEO is beholden to shareholders to deliver a profit, which is not always derived from the sale of goods to the public. More so, it is not always derived from the sale of goods to the U.S. public. Even more so, it is not derived from the sale of goods to the U.S. voting public or to a given jurisdiction's votic public (to whom the politician is accountable). So their audiences are wholly different. And despite what some libertarians assert, people do not (for the most part) "vote with their wallets". Meaning, they do not tend to look at a companies social practices when shopping for every good or service.

Do you really think that the CEO of Halliburton or GE and a local district congressman are answering to the same individuals???? That's absolute lunacy.

You say we aren't even close to capitalism -- please cite who you think is closer to what you are looking for? Are you saying we should have a governmental system more like Canada's (your only citation)? Do you believe that is more capitalist vs. socialized?

"highest corporate taxes in the world" - that is a total fallacy and anyone in business knows it. Tax rates and taxes paid are completely different things. We also have less hidden costs due to non-tax fees and corruption. Look at GE's "effective" tax rate with all the breaks they got.

The U.S. tax rules on depreciation of long term assets, especially debt-financed assets bring down the effective marginal rate significantly. Tax strategies (loopholes, some would call them), deferred taxes, hiding profits overseas, etc. all play a role in making the actual tax bill paid so different that the "rate" is almost meaningless.

Some reading: http://www.smartmoney.com/...rate-is-misleading-22463/

Check both World Bank and GAO reports here on the difference between a statutory tax rate and an effective tax rate:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004260006

If you still think the statutory tax rate is what a company pays, I sure hope you don't ever plan to be a CEO (or especially CFO)...

NOW3P - while I agree with you overall, I don't think you were responding to my post? I asked for any example of any U.S. entity, private or public, with a realistic 10-yr strategy and you responded that Minnesota has a balanced budget for FY2012? Where is their 10-yr strategy as a state?

CKHustler: "Please tell me, what is different about a politician and a CEO?" Seriously???? That isn't obvious to you?

Assuming a public company, a CEO typically reports to his BOD who represents the shareholders profit motive. Positive growth of financial returns to shareholders is the only important goal.

A politician (elected) may be influenced by special interests, but they report to the electorate (who may also be influenced by special interests) but NOWHERE in there is there an economic drive as in a capitalist enterprise. This means politicians are motivated not to turn a profit, or to break even, but to get re-elected or move on to higher office or to secure a post-politician job/gig/speaking circuit.

The two are COMPLETELY different. While I am no fan of politicians in general, the fact remains that there are issues in society which CANNOT be addressed by a capitalist model. And in today's global economy, the capitalist model is failing the United States horrendously (or vice-versa depending on your view of cause and effect).

Fact: as a capitalist, there are better investments available outside the U.S. (whether FDI, outsourcing, etc.)

Fact: increasing returns to capitalists will provide them with more capital to invest back into "the economy"

Fact: capitalists will invest those extra returns where they derive the best economic returns

Conclusion: In the current global economic environment and investment horizon, returning MORE money to successful capitalists will NOT improve the U.S. They will invest that money in enterprises taking advantage of better opportunities outside the U.S.

This is what has been plaguing our country for years now. We have a short-term horizon system (quarterly earnings) and a medium-term horizon system (stock/option/performance incentives that go 2-5 yrs at the most) where the best short-to-medium term returns are ABROAD. This means the capitalist system WILL NOT re-invest in "fixing" the problems in the United States -- because that does not deliver the best short-medium term economic returns for THAT enterprise.

This is pure capitalism, rearing its ugly head. Capitalism is GREAT at what it does -- directing capital to the most efficient economic returns. But if that "most efficient" opportunity isn't in your backyard -- you are SCREWED.

NOW3P - "...a complete lack of fiscal foresight in the United States today..."

FTFY.

Seriously, this issue is way beyond gov't. Individuals, households, communities, education, states, corporations, everywhere. Nobody is looking past the next 4 quarters.

Can you point to any part of the U.S. with a realistic 10-yr strategy?

Conceptually I'm a bit clueless on why Fascism... It doesn't sound like it has any "thematic" tie-in to a "Fascist" government style (they get more bonuses???)

Also, I think it adds too much complexity to what has been a fairly simple system. (percentages compounded, plus gov't changes, etc.)

I agree with the question from Forgotten -- was there a reason Fascism needed a new bonus?