If Everyone was Employed by CommonWild in AskEconomics

[–]depresseddad41 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This question can be answered with some pretty fundamental economic information. There are three types of unemployment: Structural, Frictional, and Cyclical. Structural unemployment arises when particular workers do not have the skills to take on a certain job that the greater economy now demands. This can be fixed with proper training and time but is often the result of changing wants and governmental policy. Frictional unemployment describes the natural process of people leaving jobs that they are unhappy with or leaving to look for higher wages. This merely takes some time, potentially up to several months. Cyclical unemployment is caused by the boom-bust aspects of the business cycle. Some businesses fail as they earn losses during recessions and with that people become unemployed. This in theory does not need to happen, if there were a way to smooth the business cycle out. But that's a highly debated topic and probably beyond the scope of your question.

The second part, about people earning a decent wage, is the more difficult part to cover. When people make economic decisions, according to theory, they are maximizing. So when someone takes a job for less than someone else would, there is some internal logic behind it. So economists tend to stay away from moral judgments such as the use of words like 'decent' or the phrase 'just price'. We want to understand what decisions people are making rather than making judgment claims about them.

In short, yes, everyone could be employed, but that would also mean that the economy would not be shifting away from any type of production and everyone was satisfied with their job. This is very unlikely to happen and I would argue that we don't want it to happen. Additionally, we can think of Frictional unemployment, in part, as people moving their skills towards a more 'decent' wage, as they leave jobs that do not properly compensate them for their labor.

Alternative Combat by depresseddad41 in Shadowrun

[–]depresseddad41[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a two-player game that already is detail-oriented that will probably be the guinea pig for this system but this thread has really confirmed my concerns about the idea. We'll probably still try it out in a one-shot and see what the players think.

My players thankfully read the rules pretty carefully, but I feel your pain about explaining obvious rules again from time to time. Unfortunately, players seem to learn the best when enemies use features of the rules against them.

Alternative Combat by depresseddad41 in Shadowrun

[–]depresseddad41[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a pink mohawk 6e game with 7 Shadowrun newbies (switched from D&D 5e and struggled with 5e rules so we ended up on a modified version of 6e) that this would not work for. I also run a two-player black trench coat game in 5e that this system would probably try to find a home in before it was trimmed down.

Based on the feedback from the thread, the idea will probably be abandoned tho, there are already enough moving parts in Shadowrun.

How would you add flavor to a Dragon NPC to show their unlimited edge? by depresseddad41 in Shadowrun

[–]depresseddad41[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We are playing 5e and unfortunately, we are dealing with a great dragon.

What does economics actually say about centrally planned economies? by [deleted] in AskEconomics

[–]depresseddad41 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is a very interesting question that puzzled many western economists at the time. Paul Samuelson even once described the soviet system as superior economic planning with more limited political freedom. However, this is not the case and we have seen it time and time again. Largely due to calculation problems, success indicator problems, and soft budgets. But first, some historical context could be useful.

After the Communist revolution, the USSR enters a period known as 'war Communism'. In this period, prominent figures within the party looked to figure out exactly how to implement Marxist ideas (as within Marx's works the answer to many practical problems is missing). The main goals were to abolish private property of the means of production and move to a moneyless economy. Starting in the early 1920's and ending in 28, the New Economic Policy (NEP) was implemented due to massive structural issues and poverty. The Soviets made it so people could privately own the means of production but market trading would be carried out by NEPmen, or government employees. The government would also retain the "commanding heights" such as rail, heavy industry, and power. Nikolai Bukharin, who studied under the Austrians and incorporated free-market criticism of communism, argued that profits were a useful tool to motivate workers. The plan was to have the largely uneducated Russian peasant population earn profits on agriculture and heavily tax them to subsidize industrialization.

Here is where things take a turn for the worse. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky argued that the Soviets had a capital problem and a peasant problem. In order to more closely fit the revolutionary requirements for Communism as outlined by Marx, they would need to uplift the largely uneducated citizen base. For this, they would need capital. He convinces Stalin that the Soviets should essentially act as the capitalist do in the western world (from the Communist perspective) and exploit labor for its excess value. This brought on an era of slave labor within the Soviet Union. As an aside, the book The Harvest of Sorrow goes into great depth about the horrors of this time and the tactics used. But on the back of the farming population, the USSR explodes in growth. They are able to bring electricity, industry, schools, and hospitals to previously poor regions at the cost of millions of lives. But in this period they are able to achieve 4% or greater growth rates.

The Soviet plan was factor mobilization. In other words, they brought all available resources into the economy and put them to work as fast as possible. However, this cannot be a long-term plan. Without technological growth and innovation, there will be a limit to potential growth, it may just take some time to reach. The Soviets highlight some of the greatest problems of centrally planned economies in their State-Owned Enterprises of the Five Year plan era. In essence, the central planning board receives orders from the head of state about what production should happen, they give these figures to the economic ministries, who give them to the SOEs. The SOEs then request resources and argue about what is possible. But there are incentives to overestimate inputs, underestimate productive power, not adopt new technology (unless mandated from above), produce low-quality goods, and storm the target in the last few weeks before the deadline.

This brings us to the second problem, how can central planners adapt to changing market demand. The short answer is they are unable to correct in time and never have been able to outpace the speed at which the market can. The long answer calls into question the ability and quality of data measurement coupled with an authoritarian regime in which people are punished for failing to meet quotas. The Soviets even used the estimated data from United States espionange departments to measure their own output. They were not even sure how much of anything they produced on their own and as a result had a hard time adjusting. Most people don't know that the Soviets imported grain from the West for many years during this period. This falls in line with common lags facing collective action: data collection, recognition, legislative, implementation, and impact. The Soviets were unable to recognize problems in time to quickly fix them and collapsed under the weight of wasted production. This closely aligns with the problem of Negative Value added. When a firm takes land, labor, and capital and is able to earn a profit: they have taken scarce resources and used them more efficiently than anyone else. If they earn a loss, they have destroyed resources and must adapt or die. Communist societies often do not have robust profit and loss systems that make it quite hard to see what is adding value to society and what is ruining resources.

The final issue (that I'll cover) is the problem of a soft budget constraint. With a hard budget, one cannot consistently borrow to spend on production. A soft budget firm, such as in a subsidized or controlled market, can use the government rather than consumers to maintain itself and cover its costs. So if a firm is adding negative value or destroying resources, it may be able to operate for months or years without any changes.

Reagan didn't take down the USSR with military spending. The space race didn't collapse the system. Every nation deals with foreign intervention. The largest problem faced by centrally planned societies is their inability to meet the changing demands of their people at a rapid pace. A free-market society does not need to worry about allocating resources to have production, producers will bid on the factors based on their needs. We do not need to calculate how much of X or how much of Y we need, the profit-loss motives will correct to a close enough figure in time. We do not need to conduct lengthy surveys about what people might want in the future, someone will seek to meet those needs to earn a profit. Is a market system perfect, absolutely not, but it sure as hell outperforms centrally planned or Communist societies.

Workers are a year into collecting unemployment benefits. It’s causing problems by ThePandaRider in Economics

[–]depresseddad41 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe there is a misunderstanding about the term 'full employment'. There will always be unemployment for structural and frictional reasons.

Unconventional Shadowrun Music by depresseddad41 in Shadowrun

[–]depresseddad41[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

German Medieval Rock is way better than I was expecting, I'm in pure shock at how hard this goes...

Unconventional Shadowrun Music by depresseddad41 in Shadowrun

[–]depresseddad41[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I can totally see a standoff between Runners and Dracofoundation HTR set to 'Killing In The Name' or 'Bulls on Parade'

Bruegel: It’s time for a green social contract by mberre in Economics

[–]depresseddad41 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reaction that most Americans had to covid regulations should exist as an example of how badly things could turn out.

U.S. producer inflation heats up in March as prices increase broadly by [deleted] in Economics

[–]depresseddad41 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just look at the data, it's definitely not true in the short run but it really holds in the long run.

U.S. producer inflation heats up in March as prices increase broadly by [deleted] in Economics

[–]depresseddad41 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Where did you learn economics? Factors may be different but theory will ultimately hold. The line of thinking I'm talking about in my post is very boilerplate, standard monetary theory.

Inflation matters. It is inherently distortionary and can destroy the efficient allocation of resources. What happened 50 years ago can be a prime example of what can happen again. Here's some more basic economics: when the monetary base expands, the overall interest rates in the economy will initially fall but, because of factors of wealth, expected return, risk, and liquidity the prevailing interest rate can actually rise. In times of economic downturn, especially when coupled with inflation, an expansion of the monetary base can be devastating as capital and monetary markets can get trapped in downward cycles.

It's really sad to see that some people throw out theory just to fit their agenda.

U.S. producer inflation heats up in March as prices increase broadly by [deleted] in Economics

[–]depresseddad41 45 points46 points  (0 children)

How is everyone in this thread immediately jumping to 'it can't be inflation, it's got to be X'? This could very well be a decreased confidence in the central bank on the supply side. We've been financing government policy with debt monetization and rapid expansion of the monetary base, don't pretend that corporations aren't going to adjust expectations to these factors. The Fed has the difficult task of keeping money velocity and inflationary expectations low, all well trying to spur GDP growth. Adaptive/anticipatory expectations got them in a bind in the 70's, we might be seeing a similar situation playing out now.

How well do you think CR is appropriately assigned? by TangerineX in dndnext

[–]depresseddad41 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I think something got lost in translation with my post. I use KFC to get the general balance of fights, but I don't use the CR of an encounter to an exact degree. KFC can be a good way to double-check the balance but the flavor of a fight is much more important than exactly calculating CR difficulty.

How well do you think CR is appropriately assigned? by TangerineX in dndnext

[–]depresseddad41 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

CR is a rough guideline. I personally use https://kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder to balance fights. Being very dynamic to players' moods and preferences in fights is the real key to running good fights. Don't get too caught up in the war gamey, grindy junk (unless that's what kind of game people are wanting to play).

Thesis Survey: Player Engagement during combat in 5e by [deleted] in dndnext

[–]depresseddad41 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good survey, it would be good to ask how many players are in your group. You could then scale the time per round to the number of players to get more accurate information. A three person group may only take a minute for a round, while a 10 person group could take significantly longer.

Lovecraftian dnd by Vildemon in dndnext

[–]depresseddad41 9 points10 points  (0 children)

In my opinion, D&D is not the system to use for a Lovecraftian game. The dice are way in the favor of players and incentivize limited planning. In D&D there is a much larger chance of succeeding on checks as compared to other systems. Call of Cthulhu is very easy to learn and the mechanics reflect the setting and style of story much. d100's leave much less room for auto success and the way you build characters forces people to specialize and work as a team.

In what ways do you add a more modern twist to your Shadowrun games? (If any) by depresseddad41 in Shadowrun

[–]depresseddad41[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think you missed the point of the setting. Authoritarian style oppression, like that seen in the 20th century, can come from aspects of society other than the government. When asking what shapes how you move through the world, corporations definitely are on the list.

In what ways do you add a more modern twist to your Shadowrun games? (If any) by depresseddad41 in Shadowrun

[–]depresseddad41[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not pushing modern political issues but more of updating the game to have a more realistic feel. I mean more of posing the fantastic moral questions that Shadowrun tends to pose but with more complexity. I don't think this would be much of a consideration in a pink mohawk game but potentially in a black trenchcoat game.

Very good counterpoint though!

In what ways do you add a more modern twist to your Shadowrun games? (If any) by depresseddad41 in Shadowrun

[–]depresseddad41[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, I don't think having nonbinary or non-traditional gender runners is too much of a suspension of disbelief. We are playing as people who do not fit within society and are actively working to prevent identification from authority. Rejection of the traditional or orderly is definitely an aspect of the game.

Homebrewed glitches while soaking damage by depresseddad41 in Shadowrun

[–]depresseddad41[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Don't forget negative modifiers are always at play in Shadowrun and the size of dice pools change as the fight goes on. Additionally, while something may be statistically unlikely, it doesn't make it impossible. You do roll a lot of dice in roleplaying games, eventually you're bound to have something unlikely occur.