Lol

I did my second interview tonight but I didn't have my role changed

republics were generally trading economies

The economic system isn't based on peasant farmers so again what may have been logical then isn't anymore. I'd prefer a system that grants us social mobility so that the best and brightest can reach the top levels of society

same my man @StevePines -WA

@TMatthews i'm all for social mobility

i'm against hereditary titles that pass on just because of birthright

Monarchy does not need to mean peasant farmer economy

I support the byzantine model of sucession

Yeah...

Rome, Spain, England, Canada...monarchies

I really support the economic model of 10th century (golden age) Byzantium. I really do.

Social mobility was all but nonexistent in the feudal system, at least for the underclass.

because you're implying feudalism = monarchy

@StevePines -WA We'll have Niko do it. I technically could, but I don't know if it's over stepping my authority since I'm just the assistant to the coordinator.

feudalism is a whole differnt ballgame

I assumed that's what you meant as it was the primary form of monarchy and hierarchy for centuries

early germanic and slavic tribes were not feudal

neither were the Romans

feudalism is a dark ages invention really

Even so, the same issues arise. No popular support. No accountability for the king. With the Turks just outside their walls, the Byzantine elites debated the gender of angels

a) strawman b) I'm talking about the 10th century model, not the late 15th century model

That is not a strawman lol.

Some monarchs sucked

Feudalism was a Jewish trick.

Some republics sucked

@Jacob it's all good lol

At least with a republic, you can theoretically change the leadership if they do poorly

the 10th century model had a lot of popular support

progressive taxes

strong army because of progressive taxes

soldiers and thier families received tax-free lands for service

that they would cultivate

decentralized army into themes enabled quick responses to problems with the empire

Again that's a totally different era when people were content owning small farms and there was ample land to give away but I digress

america has ample land

in modern times, this would look like ... wiat for it ... national syndicalism

@DairyMaxx are you NorCal or SoCal?

classes working together, not against

Not unless you're suggesting seizing arable land and redistributing it, we don't. We're already depleting our water with excessive agriculture out west. And most people wouldn't want to just be farmers nor could the economy function if they were

@Freiheit - CA SoCal
Recently changed my @

K

factories can be owned equally by the bourgousie and the working class

When do I get my 2nd interview?

the financial institutions regulated

I was told Nico would be the one giving me the 2nd interview

this would be a stable system. And ik i'm too much of a brainlet to understand all the details of byzantine economics, but there is a reason why the eastern roman empire lasted over 1000 years

Ultimately, the economic system can be adapted to a political system, but the bigger concern is getting a political system people would consider legitimate

I have a question. What improvements can be made to capitalism? Or does capitalism have an inherent flaw that cant be avoided?

Adiós mi <#481597551272001546>

👋

Capitalism (as in private ownership) is good, but we need to regulate corporations so that they serve the national interest (eg environmental regulations, trust busting, no porn industry, etc)

I totally agree^

Some regulation is good

>having corporations

capitalism has a fundamental flaw: it relies on a human vice to function. namely greed.

nazbol spotted

Capitalism's flaws are the flaws of ordinary people. Capitalism supplies whatever they demand. The fundamental issue with it then is mostly cultural. Take healthcare costs, for example. If people had healthy lifestyles instead of rampant obesity, they wouldn't be sky high

Agreed. It could even be compared to democracy. If America was a 100% democracy slavery would never have been outlawed and the civil war wouldn't have happened

I would argue that's capitalism's most brilliant feature. It doesn't fight human nature (greed), but rather it channels it into productivity

@Deleted User If Niko doesn't have time I might be able to do it

but would you not agree that greed is a vice that we should curb?

Capitalisms most brilliant feature is having never been tried

If we fixed the media and got it to stop promoting degenerate things, the public would demand different goods and the market would provide. The media is ultimately the root of most problems today, imo

capitalism promotes greed (whcih you conceded), yet you blame the media?

Greed is the essence of capitalism.. however, greed can lead to enormous generosity. Some people realize they have too much and tend to give a lot to others... but I would argue it is few and far between. Most want to stack as much as they can.

> capitalism is good <:really:453005408064241674>

capitalism rests on competition

now suppose that I was a butcher

Competition is good

and a friend of mine opened a meat shop across the street from mine

@YourFundamentalTheorum That's an interesting question. The answer is typically no, but where the greed becomes harmful (like billionaires trying to import cheap labor) I'd intervene in the national interest as states above

You can have competition without capitalism

Yup. I agree. National interests and the interests of the well-being of the people should come first

now customers are scarce, so you can't both exist. Would you feel morally right to condemn your comrade to bankrupcy simply because of his choice of profession?

@YourFundamentalTheorum
No

I would argue it's immoral to bankrupt him, for he is your comrade

Agreed

and by doing yourself well you are doing him harm

I would say I'm a national capitalist. Probably the closest example in US history is Teddy Roosevelt

therefore, competition forces people to be immoral

therefore competition is a something to be avoided

>comrade
>nazbol

Meh... idk

>comrade
>his actual name is NPC#504478

Competition is inevitable because the laws of supply and demand are inevitable. Trying to avoid it is utopian fantasizing

Yup^

but the state has to minimize

because it makes people immoral

and develop vice

The only goods transferred should be military issue. Economics itself is a vice

@DairyMaxx juche gang?

I'll say the answer is inbetween, god forbid you call me out as a... *centrist*.

that's handwavy

where is in between then

I don't think it's immoral to want more business to go to you. Now if you were to sabotage your competition, that's one thing, but barring that, competition incentivizes providing a better product in hopes of winning customers

Things that cannot be avoided:
Competition,
Supply and demand,
And
Greed (human nature regardless of tribe)

^^

so we have 2 things that are vices, and instead of fighting them we'll jsut accept them

sounds like a slippery slope into the modern world tbqh