You are not logged in.
Oh woe is me, i've been slighted by Clark & Co.
I thoroughly agree with you that there must be vast back ups inplace necessary to absorb and sustain even the million plus population if something goes wrong. I suppose that was my fault for considering the important little things too time consuming and obvious to refer to directly.
What I am telling you is this: Despite suggestions that the "Evil Commie-wealth is a plot to take over the universe", It is more reliable to establish a government (with a constitution and laws), define it's territory, define it's resources, allow it to fund it's own expansion against that wealth by foreign debt financing corporate contracts and select the people suited to become it's citizens. This avoids the very unhealthy policy of shipping in religious nutters and serial killers (as has been the case for civilizations created in the last five hundred plus years) and having "sorted the wheat from the chaff" expect to build a civilization from that pool of useless degenerates that are left.
Most importantly, it can, with the sort of wealth that will never be pulled together by the private sector or nations of Earth, do what must be done. Colonize Mars and Even Space itself. After all, if you can establish a government over Mars, why not Declare a Space station to be a City-state and give it it's own economy?
What we see here is a legitimacy inferred by membership in a Commonwealth of Earth Nations.
Offline
Oh woe is me, i've been slighted by Clark & Co.
I thoroughly agree with you that there must be vast back ups inplace necessary to absorb and sustain even the million plus population if something goes wrong.
What I am telling you is this: Despite suggestions that the Evil Commie-wealth is a plot to take over the universe, It is more reliable to establish a government (with a constitution and laws), define it's territory, define it's resources, allow it to fund it's own expansion against that wealth by foreign debt financing corporate contracts and select the people suited to become it's citizens. This avoids the very unhealthy policy of shipping in religious nutters and serial killers (as has been the case for civilizations created in the last five hundred plus years) and having "sorted the wheat from the chaff" expect to build a civilization from that pool of useless degenerates that are left.Most importantly, it can, with the sort of wealth that will never be pulled together by the private sector or nations of Earth, do what must be done. Colonize Mars and Even Space itself. After all, if you can establish a government over Mars, why not Declare a Space station to be a City-state and give it it's own economy?
Since you been hear. You started refining your model quit a bit. You came here with a few concepts of how financing works and some very nebulous ideas with no boundaries of how to make it work. Now you added things like a constitution, for the country that you intend to create having control over it own money supply vs being at the mercy of foreign banks vulture fund by private individuals. It is definitely an improvement over what you originally came in with.
Larry,
Offline
Only 'cause you is squeezing me for the fiddly bits. I tell you what, I'll put this simple, easy to comprehend version in a poll and we will put it to a test.
Offline
Fledi is of course right that this all depends on there coming cheaper way to boost us into space. I have a lot of faith in the scramjet technology for that, and in the farther future also space elevator technology. But I beliewe one of the biggest reason for how slow advantages in this technology are materializing is the lack of capitalistic approach. Space technology has until most recently been monopilized by governments and military, and it was not until the market saw some way of profiting of space, other than contracting government work, that is space tourism real innovative work started. If the market can see a way of even bigger profits in space, f.e. if they can be allowed to acquire private property on celestial bodies, innovative technology and investment in space faring technology will get a huge boost, enough for us to see real space colonization even in our lifetime. If not, it is hopeless for the whole century at least.
But Fledi, I don´t believe there will be any danger of a totally free capitalism becoming some kind of tyrannical communism. Remember, if there are no rules imposed by a government, as there will be no government, there is no way for the companies to aqcuire monopoly. There are no rules and regulations that hinder other companies to get into the market, there are no taxes that can make it harder for small companies to thrive in competition to the big companies, and there will be no way for the companies to lobby for protective status within a government.
And then we come to the ownership issue, I just do not understand why Smearny wants a government to own everything on Mars. Is a single government better in making the most out of Martian resources, than many competitive corporations? Of course not, history has shown that much, so why trying that again, when we can try something new, something free and without the mistakes of the past. When there are many competitive companies, no one can get in the possition of owning everything, and in fact, it would not be in that companies best interests to keep others out. Companies thrive when selling service to each others, and specializing, and if there comes a big conglamatory that is going to try to do everything, internal inefficiency will make it less competitive to other companies that by specialized service from other companies just like in real life on the market today.
Clark talkes about personal responsibility, but yeat he wants the government to reliewe persons and corporations of responsibility by creating all kinds of rules and regulations. I have no doupt that a companie that runs a air dome is going to set itself internal rules to ensure no irresponsible individual will mass murder/mass suicide all the inhapitants. The companies will have incentive to be as responsible as possible, as they will not get a job/contract unless they are. If they are not, those companies will suffer, and those that employ them, as they would have to pay enormous compensations, and there is nothing that ensures caution that such a threat hanging over them. Not even government rules and regulations.
Leifur
Es. [url=http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2776]Private creation and enforcement of law on Mars
Old-Icelandic/ Anarco-Capitalistic system on Mars[/url]
Offline
Remember, if there are no rules imposed by a government, as there will be no government, there is no way for the companies to aqcuire monopoly. There are no rules and regulations that hinder other companies to get into the market, there are no taxes that can make it harder for small companies to thrive in competition to the big companies, and there will be no way for the companies to lobby for protective status within a government.
But without Government you get a situation where no rules governing the conduct of the corporations, and winner takes all, you open up the entire possibility of Corporate Warlords suddenly expending resources to eliminate opponents for the preservation of the longterm profit margin.
Suppose a situation arose where "Boeing" gained a monopoly on the technology of movement through space between worlds. What if it decided to profit from the goods shipped by small companies that mined on Mars requiring a share of everyone elses company (say 10%) Without rules to prevent that, Boeing would have become the taxer of movement through it's territory (space)? Perhaps sufficiently to become the interstellar government that everyone feared. Yet no one challenges the idea of insurace payments on cargo to ensure cargo damages to vessel are countered.
Offline
You are pushing a vision where corporations will be in such power that they can create policy. But for a corporation to gain such power it must grow somewhere. And those corporations will have to sell products to someone.
At the moment the entire Human race is on Earth or LEO.
This will not change until somehow we have a reason for corporations to go into space. If this is to get a profit it means that they will take people with them or sell to people goverments have put there or even the goverments themselves. These corporations on Earth are bound to the law that there respective goverments have. This will also be the case in space.
Bases and operations in space will be under the law of the country that owns it or the flag the base flies. This means that a country would have the power to allow police access to that base under whatever law that the country follows.
We have already anti trust laws and the power to stop monopolies look at standard oil and the trouble that microsoft suffers.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
There are few things as damaging to bussiness as war, but I am not sure I understand you correctly. Do you honestly think that some martian company would start a literal war with another and thus drive investors away from it and Mars en masse? I do not understand your winner takes all vision, the opportunities Mars is going to give entrepreunals are so great that no one company is going to be able to use all those opportunities.
Suppose a situation arose where "Boeing" gained a monopoly on the technology of movement through space between worlds. What if it decided to profit from the goods shipped by small companies that mined on Mars requiring a share of everyone elses company (say 10%)
Wow, that would be an interesting bussiness opportunity!!! To be able to go to Mars, to mine it and ship it to Earth with profit and the only thing I would have to pay the shipper were 10% of the profit. Imagine how fast the colonization of Mars would happen if such an opportunity were given to us tomorrow. That would of course mean that arriving here, the minerals would have to be cheap enough to compete with locally produced/mined materials, but if some company would be able to produce such a technology, it is nothing but good that they get something in stead of doing it.
In fact, if a company could see such an opportunity on the table if they developed such a technology it could be enough to make it happen. Sadly that is not on the table today, as nobody can own anything on Mars and thus the right to mine there and such is jepordised and thus all progress is halted. But I can not see anything bad with it if a company would develop a technology to travel cheaply, and with huge shiploads, in space, and in fact if the companies can see that there is an incentive in developing such a technology they would do it if able to. One of the main reasons for how slowly space development is going is that the companies do not see enough incentives to develop space faring technologies.
I am not sure what you mean by a monopoly here. As there is no Mars or space government, no government can issue a monopoly to any companie. If some companie would develop a breakthrough technology to do this, they could probably get a monopoly on the technology from some Earth governments (but probably not all), but remember such a monopoly exspires within a century, and if some companie would start to cash in on Mars in such a way as you describe, others would start to develop another kind of technologies to try to compete with them, that is for sure, and thus we will see the space faring technology improve as fast as other kinds of technologies,like we have seen.
But most kinds of space faring technology we know is not revolutionary enough for companies to get a monopoly for them, so if some companie manages to make such an endevour possible with rocket or nuclear technology (or other we know) other companies would follow in their footsteps to compete and give the miners (and other entrepreuners on Mars) better rates.
But I honestly doupt it will become anytime soon feasible economically to mine Mars, there would at least have to come a very revolutionary technology in space travel. But Mars could newertheless become profitable, at least over the long term for investors. Settling there, and or create infrastructure for more settlement who would then come and pay for that infrastructure, that is I beliewe more likely scenero for the economic development of Mars. And economic development is of course neccasery for a sustainable colonization.
But the best thing with your hypothetical scenero is that space will be open up to the human race, wich is more than we can say today to be honest.
Leifur
Es. [url=http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2776]Private creation and enforcement of law on Mars
Old-Icelandic/ Anarco-Capitalistic system on Mars[/url]
Offline
Economics is Goods and Services. A corporation could well gain power by being the exclusive provider of services such as transportation of people and goods. FedEx would go rabbid at the trespass, but they have nothing in the way of the tech as Boeing.
There are few things as damaging to bussiness as war, but I am not sure I understand you correctly. Do you honestly think that some martian company would start a literal war with another and thus drive investors away from it and Mars en masse? I do not understand your winner takes all vision, the opportunities Mars is going to give entrepreunals are so great that no one company is going to be able to use all those opportunities.
No. But bad things happen. Space travel is unsafe, You can pay massive insurace premiums or subject yourself to our (Boeing's) new ten percent of your company policy. It certainly wouldn't be our fault if space pirates intercepted your uninsured load...
Offline
Economics is Goods and Services. A corporation could well gain power by being the exclusive provider of services such as transportation of people and goods. FedEx would go rabbid at the trespass, but they have nothing in the way of the tech as Boeing.
There are few things as damaging to bussiness as war, but I am not sure I understand you correctly. Do you honestly think that some martian company would start a literal war with another and thus drive investors away from it and Mars en masse? I do not understand your winner takes all vision, the opportunities Mars is going to give entrepreunals are so great that no one company is going to be able to use all those opportunities.
No. But bad things happen. Space travel is unsafe, You can pay massive insurace premiums or subject yourself to our (Boeing's) new ten percent of your company policy. It certainly wouldn't be our fault if space pirates intercepted your uninsured load...
Wrong answer!
Economics is not Goods and Service. It not what most people call wealth, either. Economy or Economics is a mental process coming out of the creative process of human mind that proceeds to causing physical activities to be done. Now as a direct result of those activities we do in fact produce Goods and Services, but that is not economics as such. Now an improved Economy or Economics would be an improvements of those creative process that goes into those physical activities being done or being done more efficiently. You should not be trying to reduce Economy and Economic to physical things and/or services, because that not what Economics is.
Real Economic or Economy originates as an idea and develops over time from lower mental creative process to a higher mental creative process in good Economics. So if I'm going give you an example of what Economics is, I have to show you a process and not just point to things. A healthy Economic will improve the productive power per person, per hour worked as a general principle.
The best example of Economic or seeing the results of good Economic principle in action is to look at the American Farmer along with the improvement that were made over time. At the time of the American Revolution there were about three million American. With about half of that three million Americans being on the farms. Or half of everybody inside the United States worked on a farm or 50% percent of the people. Today we have almost three hundred million people inside the United State, but we only need about two to three million farmers or about 2% to 3% percent of the US Population need to be on farms. We have a 100 times improvement in efficiency as far as production which is direct results of good Economic principle to generation those farm products. So real Economics is something that created by mankind though creative processes and then brought in existence as a human activity. So things like air planes, cars, space ship, etc are just a result of that creative activity to be use for a time and discarded and replaced with new more advance, more efficient next generation stuff. Our American Farmers didn't go from using a stick to using modern gas powered tractor and plows in one generation. It took several generations of going from using sticks, to wood plow, to wood plow with horse, to metal plow with horse, old first generation tractor to next generation, etc. It is the efficiency improved which is the measure of good Economics or it can go the other way, then it bad Economics.
So if we want an Economy in space or real Economics. We need to be thinking first generation shuttle, second generation shuttle, third generation shuttle, same with lunar shuttle, same with Martian shuttle, same with deep space spaces, same with building infrastructure on the Moon or Mars of biosphere, farming, mining and manufacturing. In other words we going from a lower technology system to higher technology system all the time to generate our Economics or build our Economy in space. It is the process of doing this, we have an Economy or we have Economics.
Larry,
Offline
Wrong Answer?
The American revolution happened not because the farmers were being squeezed but because the Engilsh decided to tax the profits of those in the service industry of transportation of goods. The revolution was set in motion by individuals who were profiting from movement of goods and suddenly objected to paying tax.
The American civil war brought about farm technology improvements because slavery came to a grinding halt. The End of Slavery and steadily increasing wages led to an age of industrialization from America to Europe. Not because it was hurting farmers but because the traders were then setting price limits for what they would pay for an agricultural product.
In both cases it was the merchants involved in the service of movement of goods who set the future of American civiliztion.
To suggest that "Boeing" could never gain a monopoly on the service of movement of goods through space in an environment that is not governed by regulation or laws in a market economy where government sits back and watches is foolish. If "Boeing" was able to become the sole provider of cheap transportation, market economic forces would require continuous increase in profit on it's part. That would mean new and better ways to profit from client groups and companies.
Otherwise you get a situation as is the case with intel. Right now they are at the edge of what is possible and yet they decline in profit along the very same curve of the failing economy that will converge on the point 30 years from now when the needs of supply can no longer match the realities of demand.
Offline
Leifur, most of the problems with corporations not bound by any government regulation have already been answered in previous postings.
I might add it will be even more important to have local people in charge in a hostile environment like Mars. Would you trust some top manager, who is sitting safely somewhere on Earth or a Space Station, with really caring more for the colonists food, air, etc. than for his profits?
There is also a dangerous possibility of using that power to extort colonists for more profit.
Offline
Leifur, most of the problems with corporations not bound by any government regulation have already been answered in previous postings.
Not to my satisfaction, they are at least most misguided by Keynism or worse, blatant socialism. It is disheartening to hear how uncapitalistic even Americans have become, are you not most of you from that country, the guiding light of freedom and market economy in modern age?
I might add it will be even more important to have local people in charge in a hostile environment like Mars. Would you trust some top manager, who is sitting safely somewhere on Earth or a Space Station, with really caring more for the colonists food, air, etc. than for his profits?
There is also a dangerous possibility of using that power to extort colonists for more profit.
Actually I am talking about the colonist arranging themselves into companies. Of course some of them will be extensions or partyally owned by existing companies, but most I beliewe will be founded with the sole purpose of investing in the future of Mars, by the investors and colonists themselves.
I beliewe this to be the most natural arrangement, when settling a new land, specially like in this case some that needs a lot of work done to be usable for growth, food production and the like. And as there will be many kinds of people going there from different cultures, it is best to prevent armed conflicts, and that is only possible with well defined property rules, and ways to optain such property. Two companies side by side are more likely to compete in none violent way than two compeeting governments.
Profits are essentially going to benefit the colonists, they will start seeing profits when more people will start to come and buy a share in their companies, or buy a land from it to develop further and settle on. There will be little profits to ship back to Earth I beliewe. So the pioneers are going to risk the most, but also gain the most if succesful, but each new wave of immigrants, and next generations are going to rip the fruit of their predecessors labor, but the new immigrants will of course have to pay the early arrivers for that.
Leifur
Es. [url=http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2776]Private creation and enforcement of law on Mars
Old-Icelandic/ Anarco-Capitalistic system on Mars[/url]
Offline
Not to my satisfaction, they are at least most misguided by Keynism or worse, blatant socialism. It is disheartening to hear how uncapitalistic even Americans have become, are you not most of you from that country, the guiding light of freedom and market economy in modern age?
Actually it is Turkey. It is the world's centre for international unrestricted Commerce. The last thing of real interest that got traded was six russian cruise missiles with nuclear warheads that went to Iran in 2004. Before that it was the fiberoptic technology that went to Iraq (Saddam build an early warning system with it).
That will change when Turkey must adhere to the authority of EU regulations.
Offline
I think we should setup independent governments on each and every planet we annex. They would all be answerable to a central or universal type government but would be more like state governments similar to our own current system but of course with clearer rules we must not allow any gray areas if possible. There would also be a constitution setup on each planet we annex as our own. The only way the constitution could be suspended by the central government is if there is evidence of a global threat facing that planet where that constitution is in effect. This is just my opinion and I welcome all ideas we must stick together all mankind if we our to survive.
Offline
Hi Darkstar,
So, you support the annexation of planets and central government... run Luke, run.
How about a nice little process whereby Mars is declared a nation state of the Commonwealth. The basics of the current constitution and law require everyone (including government) to preserve and uphold the right of the individual to an equal share of the benifits and responsibilities of citizenship, including the right to self governance in the face of tyranny.
Wow, that would be an interesting bussiness opportunity!!! To be able to go to Mars, to mine it and ship it to Earth with profit and the only thing I would have to pay the shipper were 10% of the profit. Imagine how fast the colonization of Mars would happen if such an opportunity were given to us tomorrow. That would of course mean that arriving here, the minerals would have to be cheap enough to compete with locally produced/mined materials, but if some company would be able to produce such a technology, it is nothing but good that they get something in stead of doing it.
I didnt say 10% of the profits, I said 10% of the company Leifur. With a ten percent share in your company it would fall to Boeing to allow encourage the most efficient growth of your company possible. That means within 1% profit of at cost shipping to ensure a maximization of long term profits through growth of client companies.
Boeing will favour one way colonization over crew return because it is more profitable to return the final product. You need to sit down and watch Blakes Seven-Harvest at Kairos.
Offline
I think we should setup independent governments on each and every planet we annex.
I'm not quite sure if I understand your idea. If we annex a planet it won't be independent; it will be controlled by us. But who is "we" anyway: the U.S., the U.N., some hypothetical future world government, srmeaney's Commonwealth, what? I tend to agree that other planets that humanity settles should be independent of Earth while still retaining some ties. (Some sort of UN style organization to promote dialogue over war would be good.)
I didnt say 10% of the profits, I said 10% of the company
If 10% of the company means 10% of the stock, then I think it means 10% of the profits too.
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
by Douglas Adams
Offline
I'm not quite sure if I understand your idea. If we annex a planet it won't be independent; it will be controlled by us. But who is "we" anyway: the U.S., the U.N., some hypothetical future world government, srmeaney's Commonwealth, what? I tend to agree that other planets that humanity settles should be independent of Earth while still retaining some ties. (Some sort of UN style organization to promote dialogue over war would be good.)
Any nation stupid enough to go to war against say Mars when they would loose access to the profit of economic support will be too busy being attacked by other earth nations that profit from the colonization of Mars to even have time for a date with the UN.
Offline
I didnt say 10% of the profits, I said 10% of the company
If 10% of the company means 10% of the stock, then I think it means 10% of the profits too.
Sorry, dont know what I was thinking. Thought he meant 10% of profit of cargo, not 10% of company.
Offline
I'm not quite sure if I understand your idea. If we annex a planet it won't be independent; it will be controlled by us. But who is "we" anyway: the U.S., the U.N., some hypothetical future world government, srmeaney's Commonwealth, what? I tend to agree that other planets that humanity settles should be independent of Earth while still retaining some ties. (Some sort of UN style organization to promote dialogue over war would be good.)
Any nation stupid enough to go to war against say Mars when they would loose access to the profit of economic support will be too busy being attacked by other earth nations that profit from the colonization of Mars to even have time for a date with the UN.
You are assuming that wars are just for profit or to do with economic reasons. Though true it is not always the case and if a country was beligerent enough to want Mars to itself and willing to pay the price it would easily take out a commonwealth certainly in the earlier times of its creation.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
I tend to agree that other planets that humanity settles should be independent of Earth while still retaining some ties. (Some sort of UN style organization to promote dialogue over war would be good.)
I can agree with this, even though I could also see space as just an open area for bussiness and trade, without rules and regulations, and the providers of those, governments. A government of Mars, without any real powers, as the constitution would be strictly lesser fair, is an optional solution in my view, specially as it could harbor the societies most dream of founding on Mars.
Boeing having 10% of company, that means having a very strong investor taking part in the company, I can´t see anything wrong with that, that would be very good for my company.
Leifur
Es. [url=http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2776]Private creation and enforcement of law on Mars
Old-Icelandic/ Anarco-Capitalistic system on Mars[/url]
Offline
I can agree with this, even though I could also see space as just an open area for bussiness and trade, without rules and regulations, and the providers of those, governments.
Even the ocean is subject to laws. An unregulated space will never happen.
Boeing having 10% of company, that means having a very strong investor taking part in the company, I can´t see anything wrong with that, that would be very good for my company.
I'm not talking about an investor. I'm talking about you being forced to surrender ten percent of your company to boeing (the single most efficient provider of "space travel") just for the right to not pay huge profit margins in the movement of your wares through space. Basicly in the event of Monopoly (or market dominance) You are more likely to coff up ten percent of your company than pay twenty percent of the value of your minerals your company has mined on "Mars".
Offline
Why Boeing? And why 10% How about total government control over all that is found and the government itself mining all these resources which would then be required to be equally distributed to benefit all involved not just a company but all people. If I was in control I would put our soldiers to work mining resources. There would be no need for expensive contractors or companies like boeing ripping off the people.
Offline
If I was in control I would put our soldiers to work mining resources. There would be no need for expensive contractors or companies like boeing ripping off the people.
Except for the fact that soldiers are not miners any more than miners are soldiers or machinists are dentists.
There is a reason people pay contractors to do certain types of work.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
If I was in control I would put our soldiers to work mining resources. There would be no need for expensive contractors or companies like boeing ripping off the people.
Except for the fact that soldiers are not miners any more than miners are soldiers or machinists are dentists.
There is a reason people pay contractors to do certain types of work.
it is now 4:27 AM, If they can train Naval Aviators to push the right buttons in an apollo capsule, they can train soldiers to strip-mine Mars. Unless they plan to round up disgruntled unemployed people and ship them off to Astronaut training, Your average Astronaut will continue to be of the Patriotic Military pursuasion.
Offline
If they can train Naval Aviators to push the right buttons in an apollo capsule, they can train soldiers to strip-mine Mars.
Sure, and you can train a software engineer to perform heart surgery too. But you're better off going to someone already skilled at the task you need done.
If I want something mined I'll seek out miners. Soldiers are here for a different job.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline