Droid Engineer Archive

I believe that decay is but merely a latent prerequisite to added content such as combat and utility, I recognize we have to address it first, but I disagree with spending way to much time on it, especially with dealing with complete systemic rebuilds.

The key issue is subcomponent experimentation. This possesses much more weight than I believe is assumed. I understand we are playing within a model that attempts to demonstrate perfect or universal capitalism, in which every product possesses a degree of variability which differentiate it to the consumer base. Since there are non-experimentable factors in our profession we are negatively effect the prospect of this system and is part of the reason we don’t fit within it as a class. Especially since experimentation is generally lacking within our profession. Logically subcomponents should posses impermeability, but there are other problems within the system itself which should prohibit the introduction of reasonable complications.

"Positive economics is the principle independent of any particular ethical position or normative judgments. As Keynes says, it deals with "what is rather than "What ought to be". Its takes is to provide a system of generalizations that can be used to make correct predictions about the consequences to any change in circumstances. Its performance is to be judged but the precision, scope, and conformity with experience of the predictions it yet. In short, Positive economics is, or can be, an "Objective" science, in precisely the same since as any of the physical sciences. Of cares the fact that economics deals with the interrelations of human beings, and that the investigator himself part of the subject matter being investigated is a more intimate sense than in the physical science, raises special difficulties in achieving objectivity at the same time it provides the social scientist with a class of data not available to the physical scientist. But neither one nor the other is, in my view, a fundamental distinction between two groups of sciences. "

Although normative is not independent from Positive economics, any policy conclusion necessarily rests on one thing rather than another, a prediction that must be based-implicitly or explicitly- on positive economics. So where Perfect Capitalism would normally serve as an attractive institution, it is limited in the scope of its objectivity, since it has been rendered part of normative economics which poorly reflect constituent propensities.

This is where we come into Marginal and practical utility theory, and back into subcomponents. The utility of a product is its ability to satisfy your want for it. As complexity, resources, labor increase, utility decreases because we are forced to re-evaluate opportunity cost. Additionally since in perfect capitalism prices are not fixed we are subject to the law of diminishing marginal utility, in which at some point in your consumption, additional units of consumption result in smaller increases in utility. The marginal utility of successive units of consumption will always fall. So thus, since we are now attempting to thing within the realm of consumable. Total utility rises with consumption, but it does so at a decreasing rate. Thus, we can say that marginal utility decreases as consumption rises.

In order to maximize utility opportunity cost must be reduced where as satisfaction is to be increased. The addition of experimentation bonus's, latent resource requirements, complications to the assembly process as well as the introduction of consume ability of the product will drastically reduce opportunity cost to a degree which will render equilibrium considerably out of proportion based on today’s content. Fortunately we are on the road to increase content in order to increase the satisfaction gained from our products. But the question is doing the changes we propose balance the level satisfaction versus the law of marginal utility. Lets try and anser this

Firstly we must apply a numerical value to the benefit garnered by the function of our droids. This is a subjective process one which i'm is trying to measure through the polls I have up and those I have planned. But we can make conclusions now based on conceptual goals under which our droid functions have been planned under. This goal states that the benefit received should be non essential to the target consumer profession, should not replace the input of other producers or service agents, and should provide a non unique service which could become a requirement in the routine of that consumer. The current function is what our current product selection fit under. The problem here is that our utility is significantly limited by imposed conditions. Increased utility content will have no long term effect if the satisfaction garnered does not transcend the level of want for it. If the level of want is purposely kept low, than marginal utility will remain at its current level no matter the diversity of our product base. Keep in mind that marginal utility will decrease with consume ability.

The implementation of a Droid handler profession has been deemed a prerequisite for implementation of combat droids. Effective combat droids are to possess a measure of exclusivity privy to the minority which intends to pursue utilization of them. Thus we have a limited market in which to work in. This will still expand our market but not to a massively substantial degree.

What I am trying to say is that we are working in an environment where the level of satisfaction our droids can provide is limited, and the markets we provide for are exclusive. We can live with this. Decay can address the issue of market saturation allowing a greater population of Droid engineers and granting them increased marginal utility. However this requires careful administration of factors regarding opportunity cost. Better resources and the accumulation of labor in the droid construction process drive up the price, when utility remains constant or is subject to only minor improvements or expansions demand will decrease because opportunity cost and marginal utility are out of equilibrium.

Though we have recognized and admitted to the need to possess working experimentation integers within the droid construction process. The need to expand the experimentation onto sub components is outweighed by the negative effect on the equilibrium between price and the ability for the droid to fulfill your wants.

Subcomponents and estranged labor.

Wealth is the accumulation of labor. Smith

“The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces. The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things. Labor not only produces commodities; it also produces itself and the workers as a commodity and it does so in the same proportion in which it produces commodities in general.” Karl Marx 1844 manuscripts.

By adding so much complexity to the droid construction process, the manufacturing of droids becomes absurd. It becomes a chore rather than a means of entertainment. A Droid engineer will eventually finding himself making droids for the sake of making money, rather than for the pleasure induced by the process itself.