The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[hygge0302]

I'am a very pragmatic politician, I believe in compromise first of all. I do no seek to use the big hand of government to force my proposals through. I will work with the people to acquire the best results for the American People!

I'am also a religious man I believe that god has put this test on America and I believe that we as nation will endure and grow stronger with the help of God the almighty!

I believe that my proposals are the best long term changes for the American People!

[Caezaire]

There is a growing power in South America with factions that dislike our involvement. A navy does not occupy land, the army does. We did not win the Civil War on the Seas. No matter the Naval developments wars will be won on the land. With the rising casualties that are apparent in large battles, a large army will be necessary. Remember the casualties of the Mexican war? Well the Civil war's battles were far larger and more devestating. A large army will protect our cities and act as an offensive weapons. The men who have given so much to our country do not deserve to be thrown aside.

A trained man willing to fight beats a man with a rifle thrust into his hands.

[Riccardo93]

Then we should disinvolve ourselves in their affairs! We have warm relations with both our neighbours, so I feel a strong navy is simply a better way to protect the American people.

The men would not be 'thrown aside.' That is a completely fallacious comment, putting words in Mr. Karoli's mouth. I certainly have no qualms, no distaste for military men, seeing how my grandfather, uncle, and cousins all served in the military.

[hygge0302]

I could not agree more with Congressman Jarvis, I hope you notice Mr. Gafferty that there are no navy cuts in my proposals.

[roy_mustang]

Why shouldn't you be more than welcome to seek opportunities as a hired manager elsewhere? Surely, if you view your employers working for you on your terms as voluntary and not coerced, you would have no problem giving up your capital and seeking employment as a professional manager, a hired hand for others.

After all, what labor or effort did you do above and beyond the men who you control the profits from? They operate the vessels, all of the product - the profits from the activities - is generated by them using that capital. Your company profits and your salary are a cut from their produce, their wages are not a cut from your profits.

If you view them as free to seek employment elsewhere, if you are confident that they voluntarily chose for you to control their profits of their labors and to pay them what you see fit, you should have no problem with putting that to the test by attempting to hire yourself out to free men of labor as a manager; and try to get as good a deal from them. Try to get some men not enslaved by the tyranny of capital to hire you for a majority of their profits and as part of your job as a hired manager, a professional capitalist, have the power to decide the wages of them - your employers. See how far insisting on that deal gets you.

The only reason you are in the position you are in is coercion, the state being on the side of capitalists and against the side of men having to earn their happiness. You have a license to steal the product from others because you possess capital, not capital you created but that you expropriated from labor through the capitalist system, which is imposed forcibly by the state and has no natural right to exist. Capitalist law does more to violate a man's right to own his personal property and the products of his labor than it does to protect, so you cannot claim it as "common law" or "natural law" or "an unalienable right". A man has an unalienable right to what he creates, what you consider to be your natural rights are the entitlement you feel to own what others create.

I am, indeed, welcome to hire myself out as hired manager. I've chosen not to. Doesn't mean I don't always have the choice. More to the point, I assert that yes, in fact people would want to hire a manager to coordinate their labor. A longshoreman's labor in New York is worthless to those receiving the service without corresponding service on the other end, whether that other end is Tampa, London, or any other port. The issue I have with your system, is that the system you propose would need to have control over every aspect of commerce. They would need to control the longshoremen in both New York and London, and all the crews and capital operating between the two.

Furthermore, you are, again, wrong in insisting that my company's profits are a cut from their produce - their wages are, indeed, a cut from my profits. My employees are paid before myself. Occasionally this even means I do not get paid. If there is a loss, temporarily I will take things on the chin and bear it out, as opposed to firing my employees. Only when losses are consistent will I begin to lower wages or fire employees. What labor have I done above and beyond the men whom I employ? I have bought additional capital. I have sought out the best employees for the tasks. I have solicited more clients. I have managed the accounts of the business. I have managed the particulars of their payment. I have ensured that they have money to provide for their families, before I am even sure I will have my own money. I have assured that they will have a paycheck tomorrow. What have my employees done? Only what I have asked them to do in the course of their duties. That is exactly all I require of them.

I don't understand where you choose to claim that I derive my position from "common law" or any such nonsense. On the contrary, you, Mr. Weaver, are the one who insists that there is an "unalienable right" to what one creates. There is not, especially not if one has entered an agreement to surrender whatever they have created for certain reimbursement. Is that not, after all, what employment is?

[blindgoose]

((Thanks, BBB. I didn't mean that all charity should be banned or anything, just that these self-made man characters are getting a bit ridiculous. What is especially annoying is that they claim all of their employees love them and they pay them the best wages in the world, etc., etc., but in the context of the game, I can not challenge this without godmodding, however, at the same time, it seems like godmodding for a "self-made man" character to dictate the views of their employees and pretend there's never been a strike or a union drive, or unfair firing,s or anything. I probably should have explained what I meant a bit better. It just seems unfair, in the context of the game, that a "self-made man" can declare the company they run pristine and strike-free and I can't declare any type of organizing or problems in the same place. Kinda makes the arguments from "my business" and "my employees" fairly lopsided.))

[roy_mustang]

((blindgoose, if it helps I'm more than happy to deal with a strike or four. Anything for the story!))

[blindgoose]

((blindgoose, if it helps I'm more than happy to deal with a strike or four. Anything for the story!))

((It's not anyone in specific, so I don't mean this as a personal thing. It's just something I notice happens often with a character of the type. It's kind of hard to argue that the working-men aren't getting what they need when everyone you're arguing with is a benevolent monopolist. I hope you understand what I mean. This isn't directed at any characters in particular, just the class in general. It's something I've observed which hasn't much changed since the introduction of socialism to the game.))

[Riccardo93]

((I was against monopolies... I think they end on their own, eventually, from an end of competition. And I pay my people an average amount...))

[thekinguter]

I still do not understand the Federal Party. Anyone care to explain?

[Spitfire5793]

With Howard industries still recovering from the economic crisis, we have taken the desicion to suspend our profit sharing scheme until further notice. This is not a light descion, however with our budget tightening, we have had to take this descision in order to save jobs.

[blindgoose]

I still do not understand the Federal Party. Anyone care to explain?

((Mushy-centrists))

[blindgoose]

((I was against monopolies... I think they end on their own, eventually, from an end of competition. And I pay my people an average amount...))

((I don't mean to start an erroneous OOC convo, so maybe you can PM me, but could you explain this logic with monopolies? In all my experience with industrial economics, all I've seen is that monopolies DON'T end by themselves, it usually takes some form of intervention to break them up or introduce competition.))

[thekinguter]

((Mushy-centrists))

Agrarian populists?

[blindgoose]

Agrarian populists?

((Nah, that's more the Democratic Party's bag. The Federals are literally mushy-centrists. They have no discernible politics of their own and the party center seems to shift every election depending on which way the opportunist winds are blowing. Actually, that's a better term for them. Opportunists.))

[Rogov]

(( Actually, seeing as Bourbon Democrats in real life were say against farmer subsidies/relief and represented the well to do big guys running post-reconstruction sharecropper plantations, and were the enemies of the Populists - who were literally agrarian populists, believing in farmers subsidies and bimetallistic inflation to help the farmer, inflation being something the Bourbons opposed - there is no conflict in there being agrarian free market romantic conservatives and agrarian populists. It was a big part of real history, that opposing dynamic within the real life Democratic Party - and here it is a conflict between the Conservatives and the Federalists; with the Democratic party of this timeline being socialists at this point in history.

And I agree with Goose's criticism: if he declared strikes at people's companies, they'd call that godmoding, but they are accomplishing the equal and opposite political/social impact of that in the thread's interpersonal dynamic by saying they run benevolent patriachies with no desire for trade unionization and happy employees. It's like when there was the cheering crowd war a while back. ))

[thekinguter]

Well, regardless of their ideals, they seem to be doing better than the Democrats. They've got majority in Congress don't they?

[Riccardo93]

For now they do... but they have landslide syndrome (which BBB pointed out...)

((I agree, they are more 'opportunistic,' if that's a good word for it. They were borderline socialists, hawks, doves, capitalists, and everything in between...))

[thekinguter]

((Well I admit it's tough to carve an identity out of a new party in one of the most solid bipartisan systems in the world. ))

[Gloa]

I still do not understand the Federal Party. Anyone care to explain?

((The Federals started as agrarian populists (as opposed to the urban labor that the Libertarians and then the Democrats were formed from), but didn't really focus on the economic side of the debate. Their big ideas had to do with law and order (every Federal had some plan to better the FBI and otherwise keep the peace and cut down on crime) and weariness with the urban centric back and forth over economic "sides" - the westerners felt that Congress was busy debating between these groups or debating states rights vs. federalization instead of actually doing what was needed at the time (so yes, more opportunistic and pragmatic bases as opposed to principle based stands).

They were a sort of bargaining party when they first formed - while not bi enough to compete with the big parties, they had to be courted to gain a really assured majority of support for something, and so they gained concessions.

The Spanish American war was strongly brought up by Federals, who had nothing to lose, and that made them the hawk lobby and the internationalist lobby as they rose to power. It was around this time that they tried to figure out what their big principles in terms of economics were, but the big tent of people interested in their other policies made it hard to get a really solid consensus. They stood a bit socialist leaning (but everyone was at the time, in counterweight to the highly opposed Republicans) until the Republicans dissolved and really influenced the economic trends toward the former Republican positions in places where former Republicans were the majority of Federal voters.

Because they are in the center of some of the major political issues, and because they have a more "what should the government do now?" approach rather than a "what should government do?" approach, their platform is going to shift more with the political disturbances in recent years.))