The Vineyards

Etienne: http://www.entropiauniverse.com/en/rich/5000.html
Alck: Hahahaha! Look, we finally have jobs! ;))
Etienne: Article on the newspaper today says american guy sold everything he had, making $100k USD, bought a starbase in game and now rents advertisement space, charges for usage of facilities, etc. He makes $15k USD a month. :)
Alck: .... That's absurd. :)
Etienne: I like the concept of being a businessman without the hassle of dealing with actual bureaucracy and all things physical. :)
Alck: It's absurd that people actually pay for virtual stuff. :)
Etienne: I don't see a problem. :)
Alck: It's not fun to play like that. Imagine that I had to arm my X-Com agents with my real money out here. That means that if I'm too poor, they'll get lackluster equipment and the game will be too frustrating, and if I'm too rich, they'll mop the floor with the aliens and the game will be pointless. That shit crushes game balance, and introduces the same sort of social unfairness we so strive to avoid with our escapist entertainment. ;)
Etienne: I didn't look too deeply at it, so I can't agree or disagree. I think it's not to be taken purely as a game, more like a new area to invest in. In any business, people with a lot of money have better chances of making more money. The advantage of this game is you are probably not limited by all the stuff that keeps you down in the real world, and if you have absolutely nothing in the game, you won't starve to death. :)
Alck: .... Thanks for reminding me of why I watch Sci-fi and play games instead of doing anything productive. :)
In Korea, they already have companies that "lvl" up your character for you. :)
Etienne: Hey, Entropia seems interesting if you think it's a game and one bonus you get for playing it is actual money. You don't have to look at it as a business. :)
Koreans are too weird about games, they don't count. =P
Alck: Yeah, but my machine can't run it anyway, and I'm not spending real money to make it compatible. :)
Etienne: Ah, you have a very good point there. :)
But those whose machines can run it, it may be just a fun way to make a buck. No need for $15k a month, just $10 would be fun enough. It has the "I made money from playing a game" factor. :)
Alck: Yeah. I bet it pays worse than washing dishes and cleaning toilets in the US though. :)
Etienne: Depends on how much you invest on it, I assume. :)
Alck: It's pretty clear that this system will eventually result in a handful of people holding all the wealth in the world while everyone else slaves for minimum wage. Considering that the grunts usually are among the latter case and that they are the only means the rich guys have to defend their wealth.... how exactly DO they defend their wealth? :)
Etienne: They purchase automated defense systems from companies who employ researchers and designers? :)
Alck: Or make sure the grunts are too uneducated and brainwashed to realize what's going on. ;)
Etienne: The grunts need to be able to use a computer and play a game online. They aren't normal grunts. :)
Alck: Oh... well, I had deviated from that topic a little. :)
What I was asking, since you're far more politically savvy than me is: If everyone on Earth was smart, would capitalism be possible at all?
Etienne: Upfront I say "Yes".
But you may mean "smart" in a number of senses. Like, Brazilian-smart, able to take advantage of others? Or intelligent, educated, perhaps wise? Able to see clearly, good at math?
Depending on what exactly you mean by smart, it could well lead to a pure communist state, for example, if we assume smart means "I depend on everyone else's wellbeing" rather than, say, "Give me some stuff and I'll figure out what to make with it and who would buy it from me".
Alck: No, no, I mean smart as in 100% ruthless self-interest. Impossible to be brainwashed or manipulated by others into acting altruistically. They'll ONLY cooperate with others if that action is beneficial to themselves (or less detrimental than not cooperating - example, having a gun to your head).
What I imagine that will happen in this case is that people with large wealths will become extremely desirable targets for plundering and thus inviable. People won't defend the wealth of others unless that's more profitable than plundering it itself. So, the balanced state in this system would be everyone having the amount of wealth their one person can defend.
Etienne: I can't picture a veritable scenario where plundering is taken so lightly. =p
What you have there is not everyone being smart, it's everyone being greedy in pathological degrees. Who among these people would produce food if they wouldn't make as much money from it as they would doing something else? If everyone is so absurdly focused on money alone, the other needs will collapse and society will crumble, probably giving some commodity (food, water, medicine) a higher value than all currency anyone can have. Would they become greedy for that commodity, then, ultimately leading to each person standing guard all day and night in front of his clear water spring, his 2x2 meters plantation of corn and his small chest of coins?
Alck: I was thinking of a pre-currency scenario, yes. I'd like to picture it from the very beginning, to see which structures would develop, which would develop differently, which not at all. Thinking cavemen here.
But yeah, people with low defenses and high wealth would grow paranoid, everyone would want to "even things out". People with lower wealth than their battle power would be feared. They have less to lose (more willing to take risks). In the end, everyone would have roughly equal wealth (measured in tangible goods, no currency).
Etienne: Ah, you didn't specify, I assumed everyone became equally greedy overnight. :)
A scenario like that would probably evolve to a point then stay in it forever. These people would never form societies, never do much research (unless they were sure it would give them an advantage, but then it wouldn't be shared and would probably die with them sometime), probably not even develop agriculture.
Alck: Hmmmmm.... maybe something is missing from the equation then. :D
Etienne: Well, you proved you can't have capitalism if everyone is equally smart (or greedy), but at the cost of not having civilization at all, either. =D
Alck: Actually, by Darwin's theory, creatures ARE completely ruthless and selfish, even if they themselves don't know that (except towards their relatives). I'm trying to figure out how the current system came about... Why are creatures so vulnerable to verbal manipulation? Can it really be accounted for the current state of things?
Well, I'm late for University, but I'd really like to discuss this further at another time, if you don't mind. :)
Etienne: Not at all. Go for it, we'll pick it up later. :)