Gentlesophonts:
First, some final stirrings of the `techno-economic cycles' debate.
Hans Rancke [email removed] writes:
> You asked for an explanation of
> how come Gram dominated Saxnoth when Saxnoth was more powerful than Gram. I
> suggested that maybe Gram had been a higher tech level recently (and/or
> Sacnoth lower) due to an econo-technological cycle effect. You _claimed_
> that this wasn't possible. Since then I've been arguing that they are.
I'm worried we're getting a little acrimonious here. Let me state that I
*accept* that the techno-economic cycles are *possible*. I find them very
*unlikely* based upon my understanding of economics *and* technology. I
also find the idea of Zhodani support to be a more credible (and therefore
more likely) explanation for Gram's domination of the Sword Worlds. I also
prefer this explantion from a *gaming* standpoint because it provides for
some interesting ramifications in the Sword Worlds should the nature of
Zhodani support for Gram change in the New Era.
> What factual record? We have _one_, count them, one, complete listing of
> world UWPs for the Spinward Marches, the one first published in _Spinward
> Marches Campaign_ and since reprinted (with the UWPs _unchanged_) in
> _Imperial Encyclopedia_ and _Megatraveller Journal_ #3
I accept this. And it *is* a factual record. From *Supplement 3: The
Spinward Marches* to *MegaTraveller Journal* #3 we have a period of about
fifteen years of elapsed time. Clearly there were some changes in this
data (you've mentined the allegiance codes) so the fact that UWP changes
weren't made *must* be assumed to be intentional. (Although I *suspect*
there *was* no intention, as in much of what's appeared over the years.)
Now [WARNING: I don't have TNE!] it's my understanding that there were some
significant UWP changes for the the Regina subsector material presented in
*TNE*. Clearly, this is intentional as well. Whether it is *reconcilable*
with any of the pre-TNE material is another matter.
> So it _could_ be that the TLs have grown slowly and
> steadily. Or they could have been rollercoasting up and down over the
> centuries. We just can't tell from the record.
I don't think it's that certain. Yes, there may have been cycles but as
it stands the records show fifteen years of stagnation and *no* evidence of
any down turn.
> I say again: A moderately important colony like Regina that advances it's
> economy by 5% (or even 20% if you go by _Striker_ rules) in eight centuries
> by slow, steady increments that never declines, is difficult to believe. I
> can believe in economic up- and downturns that averaged out into 5% over the
> centuries much more readily.
Let's remember all this is occurring in a 2D universe! How's that for a
suspension of disbelief? Seriously, I, too, find the rate of technological
advancement inscrutably slow but can rationalize it as a legacy of Vilani
culture. These `techno-economic cycles' seem to add one more layer of
required suspension of disbelief for me, especially in the absence of any
evidence to support them. You must also realize by now that we're you to come
up now with just *one* example of a down turn, I'd explain it away as a mere
typo? :-)
> If the planet at any future date
> becomes poorer, its economic level would decline to EL A again. Its
> technology should decline as a consequence, since the planet obviously
> cannot afford to maintain the technology (if it could, it would have had
> TL B in under EL A in the first place).
This is what grates with my economic and technological sensibilities. You,
yourself, have maintained that *maintenance* of a particular level of
technology is easier than *advancing* into a new level. Technological
capability may be tied to economic capability but it is not directly so.
Economies fluctuate all the time. Technological fluctuation occurs much
less frequently and is a much more *serious* event. I maintain that a
*severe* economic downturn would be required to produce a significant (in
terms of a tech level change) technological downturn. Recall that our only
modern example where this sort of event *might* have happened is during the
Great Depression.
So, in conclusion Hans, I agree that these `techno-economic cycles' are
quite *possible*, but based upon my understanding of economics and technology
they are, IMHO, very *unlikely* and virtually impossible on a wide-scale
basis such as an entire subsector, much less across an entire sector or
more.
Now on to the question of feudal technocracy.
> >No. A feudal technocracy is a system of government where the owners of
> >industrial production give their support in exchange for economic opportunity
> >or `protection'.
>
> Then its not analogous to a feudal society.
Why not? What if I had said `*holders* of industrial production'?
> Let's get a few definitions
> straight:
What I get from your emphasis on these defintions is a focus on *land*.
Is that where our disagreement lies? I grant the `ownership of land' by
the lord but don't see it as being very important despite what the venerable
Oxford tome has to say. The key part of the lord's end of the feudal
agreement was the provision of coordinated security services, not some
tenuous grant of land possession.
> And these shareholders never represent different interest groups that wheel
> and deal and compromise to get their respective representatives on the
> board? The board is always composed of people who are in complete accord?
> And all the shareholders are always in accord too?
Of course there is dissent among the various shareholders, just as there
was often dissent among the vassals of a particular lord. I don't see
your point here. What is there about this that suggests it isn't feudal?
> >In a feudal technocracy there are several *different*
> >and independent groups of shareholders (i.e. the `barons') who each act
> >as *separate* and distinct entities.
>
> Act in what way that is different from owners of different share blocks in
> a corporation?
The various shareholders in a *particular* corporation all hold `fealty'
to the Chairman of *that* company. This is akin to a medieval situation in
which a single individual had risen to the top of the feudal structure,
a king. Maybe the difference here is that you're looking at, say, Gram,
as medieval Germany, while I'm at looking the entire Sword Worlds as all of
medieval Europe?
> I didn't include the corporate model as an example of the equivalent of
> a kingdom, but as the equivalent of a fief.
I'm confused. You wrote:
> >>Traditional feudal society Corporation Feudal technocracy
Which suggested a three-way comparison to me: feudal aristocracy, corporate
system *and* feudal technocracy. I guess I misunderstood you.
> And a vassal does what his liege lord says or he is 'fired'.
In theory, yes. In practice, not very often, unless the system had travelled
well down the road toward autocracy. A corporate model is *always* auto-
cratic.
> >This isn't correct. In a feudal aristocracy the king does not `own' the
> >land.
>
> Yes and no. He owns a lot of it from the days where his father was the
> biggest lord around.
Etc.
Okay, I stand corrected. I maintain though that this `ownership' was not
the important, *practical* aspect of the lord's part of the feudal
agreement. Rather, it was his provision of coordinated military services
that was what *mattered* in the feudal arrangement.
> Coordinated services may be the reason why the other lords decided to back
> him. But what they owe him fealthy for is the tenure of their fiefs.
Okay, I stand corrected again, You're talking about the *philosophy* of
feudalism (the legal basis) and I'm talking about the *practice* of it (its
practical implementation). I think my focus is more useful in trying to
understand the translation of the medeival feudal aristocracy to the
feudal technocracy of Traveller.
> Look, the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner.
No. The shareholders are a morass of different interests just like the
various vassals of a medieval lord.
> In theory
> they make up one person, the owner of the corporation.
Again, I don't think talking about theory is particularly useful.
> The Chairman works
> for the owner. The vassals 'works' for the king. See the difference?
In practice there is *no* difference. In *practice* the medieval king
`works' for the vassals in provinding coordinated security services just
as the technocratic king works for the shareholders in providing
coordinated profit services. The medieval vassals provided military
service *and* taxes and the technocratic vassal provides financial
capital. The two situations are *very* analogous, IMHO.
> A fief has _one_ owner.
Just as any single bloc of shares has *one* owner.
> A baron can't sell off shares of his barony to make
> the buyers part-barons of the fief (He may be able to sell bits of the fief,
> but these bits then become parts of other fiefs).
Exactly. Just as purchasers of shares gain title to their own new fief!
> And if a company is the
> equivalent of a fief then there won't be any shareholders, just one baron.
No. A private company, without public shareholders (there may *still* be
several *private* shareholders), is akin to a `barony' on an island in
the middle of an ocean somewhere. It's not part of a feudal system either.
> There can be no
> shareholders in a feudal fief, technocratic or not.
The group of shares held in common by any single shareholder (this may be
a group of individuals but with respect to their stock they are acting in
concert) *is* a fief!
> It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws.
I think that is a *great* definition of feudal technocracy! See, because
it considers the entire economy (i.e., `capitalism') it is much more
complicated than any single corporate system. (BTW, the reason there
*aren't* any anti-trust laws in a feudal technocracy is because political
power is tied directly to economic power - there is no `government' to
control the economic barons. In a sense, the civil war on Joyeuse can
be seen as an `anti-trust' action!)
> Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment.
Again, you're arguing feudal *theory* and I'm arguing feudal *practice*.
Medieval vassals paid taxes to their lords.
> I suppose that a part holding in a BIG company could be a fief in itself.
> But that would be owned by _one_ person, and that person would have the
> title. And there's certainly no mention of any 'Baron of a Third of the
> Megatronics Company' in _Space Viking_ ;-)
It seems to me you're still focused on a single company. A feudal
technocracy has to involve the *entire* economy. To use the *Space Viking*
model, there were probably `veterinary service' fiefs under Traskon and
`geological service' fiefs under Karvalmills, just as Traskon and
Karvallmills were held in fealty to Duke Angus. Remember that Trask
and Karvall were Angus's *vassals* but Trask later *sold* Traskon to
Angus. Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword
Worlds. Profit generation was.
> That's just precisely what I claim he couldn't. He gives the barony in
> its entirety to Duke Angus, and Angus appoints another Trask as 'Vicar-
> Baron'. And just like that Lucas is no longer a baron.
Trask sold the entire barony because he needed it for the ship, *not* because
he couldn't sell it in parts! (He was also anxious to get away from Gram.)
> But if it had been, it would have been as indivisible as any land barony
> (ie. he might be able to sell off peripheral parts, but the core must
> remain relatively intact).
Why? This happens all the time, now. Through a series of mergers and
acquisitions International Telephone and Telegraph (IT&T) no longer has
any telecommunications businesses as it's `core'.
> Have we read the same book? Angus increased wealth allowed him to buy more
> fighting men which allowed him to attack Omfray and other enemies and to
> gain the support of some of the other big dukes.
Okay, so he did just like I've suggested Sacnoth ought to do with Gram.
He used his greater economic strength to acquire military force that
permitted him to quicken the process of economic hegemony and eventual
monopoly. He convinced other Gram nobles to support him just like I
suggested Sacnoth might find supporters among the other Sword Worlds for
a move against Gram. Are you arguing my case now? :-)
> No, in a young FT it's the ones who has glommed onto a big slice of the
> industry and dole it out to vassals. In a well-established FT it's the
> ones whose ancestors did that and then supported an even bigger duke for
> king.
Doesn't `glommed onto' here mean the same thing as `controlling large blocks
of industrial production'? What difference does it make how they came into
possession?
> Wait a minute. The Chairman keeps back part of his employees' salaries and
> place them in a pension fund, right? That gives hin lot of pull in electing
> the board of the fund, agreed. But the money that accrues from the fund
> belongs to the employees, don't it? How does the Chairman see a penny of it?
No, I'm not talking about the *company's* pension fund. It's pension funds
for, say, teachers. The teachers' union has a pension fund for its members.
These funds can run to billions of dollars. The manager of this pension
fund, hired by the teachers' union, is responsible for gaining the best
return for the fund (or she get's fired - a corporate arrangement). The
pension fund manager chooses to buy shares in, say, IBM. The teachers'
union becomes a shareholder of IBM, a `technocratic vassal'. If the fund
has purchased a large enough share of IBM it enjoys a great deal of influence
on the IBM board. If IBM isn't profitable it's shares lose value and the
pension fund loses money. This makes the teachers mad and the next thing
you know, CEO Akers (the technocratic lord) is out and CEO Gerstner in now
running IBM.
It's actually much more complicated because the teachers' union pension fund
is invested in General Motors and Exxon and Mitsubishi Industries, etc. as
well. And then you have the railroad union, and the government employees
union, and Ross Perot, all the other investing shareholders in the market
place, including the corporations themselves which all own shares in each
other. It's as complicated as medieval Germany.
> We're most certainly not saying the same thing. If a noble holds his land
> from an overlord he cannot transfer his support without breaking his oath.
Again, you're focused on theory and legal underpinnings. Do you suppose
Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded Glaspyth?
The teachers' union has no legal `right' to replace the CEO but it happens
when they're displeased nonetheless.
> If he's an independent lord that is not a king we're still in the early
> state of the formation of the kingdom.
Tom O'Neill has already identified our respective focuses upon opposite
ends of the feudal spectrum. (Although I don't see myself as *being* on
the other end - it's just easier to illustrate the workings of the
system from there.)
> You're talking about economic might regardless of the social system. But
> a sovereign power is only vulnerable to outside economic influence if
> they are vulnerable.
No. In a feudal *technocracy*, economic power is tied directly to political
power. (Just as political power was tied to land and military power in the
medieval feudal system.)
> The reason US Industry
> fears the japanese is that the US _is_ vulnerable. But why should Gram
> be vulnerable just because the US is?
Because the Sword Worlds do not have the political stucutures outside of
the economic stucture that contemporary free-market governments do. In
actuality, Gram is *more* vulnerable than the US.
> >>2) He isn't that much stronger.
> >
> >He is if he really enjoys a full tech level advantage.
>
> Not according to the Traveller rules.
Okay. You argue this one with former-TMLer and flame-prone Mr. Higginbotham.
> Now we're suddenly into the military situation. I thought you were talking
> about economic superiority?
I was simply pointing out, as Duke Angus of Wardshaven recognized, that
military action would speed up the process of economic domination. It
makes domination happen quicker but it will happen regardless.
> William White writes a whole heap of good stuff:
Yes, he did. Very good. I've already responded on some points.
> The essence of the definitions of feudalism I've seen is that you 'pay'
> for tenancy with services instead of money.
Try to get away from theoretical definitions an instead think about how
it is implemented in *practice*.
> But I suggest
> that the technocracy bit lies in the substitution of industry for land as
> the feudal fief.
No. It's based upon *possession*, of a land fief or a stock fief. It is
manifest in the nature of the *obligations* (coordinated services on the
part of the lord, local services and resources on the part of the vassal)
arising from the feudal agreement.
Peace,
David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA