Hardcore_gamer:

Also, I would like to remind people that the workers starving wasn't intended, and that I lowered the taxes for them from 75% to only 25% once I saw that they were, because we needed workers for factories and also because we had enough money at that point for now anyways. The workers aren't all starving to death anymore. Also the middle class is now only paying about 40% tax and not 75%.

Wait, I'm confused. "Tax" implies "property." Isn't the best solution a policy where "individual" "citizens" are components of the Human Hive, not one where they are free to misuse the non-sapient components of the Human Hive for their own "self"ish reasons?

Hardcore_gamer:
1. It takes time for anger to grow. You don't just make 1 stupid decision and then have the entire nation rebel.

I don't know about you, but if I was starving for 4-6 years I'm pretty sure I'd start rising up and inciting everyone else in the same situation to violence as well. You can try to explain it away as standards being lower at that period in history, but I'm pretty sure that if the majority of the population were starving to death while a small percentage lorded their wealth over them at any point in history they're going to rise up. They may or may not be successful, but when large numbers of people aren't even meeting their most basic needs, not due to a lack of resources, but because the state and the rich hold all of the cards, they're going to respond in some way, whether it be theft, riots, or full blown revolt.

Vivi22:

Hardcore_gamer:
1. It takes time for anger to grow. You don't just make 1 stupid decision and then have the entire nation rebel.

I don't know about you, but if I was starving for 4-6 years I'm pretty sure I'd start rising up and inciting everyone else in the same situation to violence as well. You can try to explain it away as standards being lower at that period in history, but I'm pretty sure that if the majority of the population were starving to death while a small percentage lorded their wealth over them at any point in history they're going to rise up. They may or may not be successful, but when large numbers of people aren't even meeting their most basic needs, not due to a lack of resources, but because the state and the rich hold all of the cards, they're going to respond in some way, whether it be theft, riots, or full blown revolt.

Perhaps, but another thing that I forgot to mention as well is that revolts don't happen unless the people think they can win. If they consider them self's to stand a chance against the army and rebel movements become popular enough then there is a national uprising, basicaly a civil war. Another thing to keep in mind is that there are actually many different kinds of rebels. There are liberal rebels who want change, there are reactionary rebels who want to revert change, there are nationalist rebels who are angry that another nation controls them etc. These rebels rise under different circumstances and demand different things.

This isn't like most other games where rebels just come to be automatically once people are angry, the game actually mesures chances for success so that people don't just launch a rebelion that has no chance of being successful.

DrVornoff:

Hardcore_gamer:
I merely decided to suppress them via force.

The fact that you said that so casually... You're basically saying that to maintain your system, you had to deny poor people the right to vote and when they asked for that right, you violently put them down to maintain the status quo. You don't think that's a flaw in your policies?

No, because I am more concerned about the end results.

See this trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UtopiaJustifiesTheMeans

I don't intend to be ruthless forever, but merely for long enough to make the nation ideal. Then afterward people can have all of those rights that are seen as good like more traditional voting, free speech etc. But only afterward, or else I risk them messing up my plans.

I think the true test of the system will be to see how people will react AFTER that happens. To see if they decide to stick with the nation that I will built or getting rid of it.

Vivi22:

Hardcore_gamer:
1. It takes time for anger to grow. You don't just make 1 stupid decision and then have the entire nation rebel.

I don't know about you, but if I was starving for 4-6 years I'm pretty sure I'd start rising up and inciting everyone else in the same situation to violence as well. You can try to explain it away as standards being lower at that period in history, but I'm pretty sure that if the majority of the population were starving to death while a small percentage lorded their wealth over them at any point in history they're going to rise up. They may or may not be successful, but when large numbers of people aren't even meeting their most basic needs, not due to a lack of resources, but because the state and the rich hold all of the cards, they're going to respond in some way, whether it be theft, riots, or full blown revolt.

My memory is a little vague, but I recall something about the french starving several years in a row during the late 1780's. I think there might also have been a revolution at that point, which might have been supported by the army and I also believe that the current monarch might have been beheaded.

It has been a while so I could be wrong, of course, but I believe that if it happened in 1789 then it sure would have happened in 1840. Especially since this is during the same decade that the massive worker riots took place all around Europe and the Paris Commune rose to fame.

So yeah, I'll side with the crowd that believes this is a pretty piss poor way of trying to simulate real life economics. Just like Hearts of Iron is a poor way of trying to "simulate" how Germany might have won World War 2.

Gethsemani:
I think there might also have been a revolution at that point, which might have been supported by the army

That's the problem with your argument right there.

My army supports ME and my government, not the angry lower classes.

Hardcore_gamer:

DrVornoff:

Hardcore_gamer:
I merely decided to suppress them via force.

The fact that you said that so casually... You're basically saying that to maintain your system, you had to deny poor people the right to vote and when they asked for that right, you violently put them down to maintain the status quo. You don't think that's a flaw in your policies?

No, because I am more concerned about the end results.

See this trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UtopiaJustifiesTheMeans

I don't intend to be ruthless forever, but merely for long enough to make the nation ideal. Then afterward people can have all of those rights that are seen as good like more traditional voting, free speech etc. But only afterward, or else I risk them messing up my plans.

I think the true test of the system will be to see how people will react AFTER that happens. To see if they decide to stick with the nation that I will built or getting rid of it.

Yeah, that's still tyranny and despicable as hell. It is exactly the same line of reasoning that the USSR used when it started its' "purgings" of its' own population or the agricultural reform that killed millions of people. The end doesn't justify the means if the means involves oppressing, hurting and killing hundreds of thousands of the people you claim you want to help.

Hardcore_gamer:

Gethsemani:
I think there might also have been a revolution at that point, which might have been supported by the army

That's the problem with your argument right there.

My army supports ME and my government, not the angry lower classes.

That's what a certain Louis XVI said too. Right up until his own army corps started changing sides when tasked with quelling the rebellion. Either way, the people still rebelled and rioted long before they got help from the army so it is not exactly a problem with my argument but rather one with Victorias mechanics not being able to represent real life.

Hardcore_gamer:

DrVornoff:

Hardcore_gamer:
I merely decided to suppress them via force.

The fact that you said that so casually... You're basically saying that to maintain your system, you had to deny poor people the right to vote and when they asked for that right, you violently put them down to maintain the status quo. You don't think that's a flaw in your policies?

No, because I am more concerned about the end results.

See this trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UtopiaJustifiesTheMeans

I don't intend to be ruthless forever, but merely for long enough to make the nation ideal. Then afterward people can have all of those rights that are seen as good like more traditional voting, free speech etc. But only afterward, or else I risk them messing up my plans.

I think the true test of the system will be to see how people will react AFTER that happens. To see if they decide to stick with the nation that I will built or getting rid of it.

I get the feeling that your plan is only possible in a country led by a practically-omniscient extra-universal entity. Rulers tend to do the tyranny part and then get bored when its time to do the rest.

Also, I dont understand what you are doing. Like at all. You tell that taxes are bad and then crank that shit up. And isnt right-wing for small goverment? AKA screw the administration slider. You also went with socialist practises, like an interventionist stand on economy.

Wasnt the entire point of this exercise, that such means would be unnecessary?

Hardcore_gamer:

I don't intend to be ruthless forever, but merely for long enough to make the nation ideal. Then afterward people can have all of those rights that are seen as good like more traditional voting, free speech etc. But only afterward, or else I risk them messing up my plans.

But isn't that a step backwards? Allowing "free speech" and "democracy" is just encouraging your population to think in terms of the self of body instead of the self of group and the self of humanity.

Aww, I was hoping for Recettear.

Anyway, no academic economic theory, much less game, have ever been able to provide an ultimate answer that's always work out for any kind of society. There even seem to be several viable answers, from US corporatism to Scandinavian welfare societies, that have netted acceptable results.

Also, the policies/gameplay used don't really seem to have much bearing on what would ever be deemed possible, desirable, or ethical in the 21th century western world.

Imperator_DK:
Aww, I was hoping for Recettear.

You mean the game that rewards you for going bankrupt?

Capitalism HO!

evilneko:

Imperator_DK:
Aww, I was hoping for Recettear.

You mean the game that rewards you for going bankrupt?

Capitalism HO!

Yep. Bailouts for everyone! _{of enough importance to be a pillar of the financial economy.}

DrVornoff:

Imperator_DK:
Aww, I was hoping for Recettear.

That would probably make for a better thread.

On the other hand, using a number crunching 19th century industrial nation sim to make points about what would work in the real 21th century post-industrial economy might make for a more amusing thread.

I'm still smiling at the forceful suppression of the suffrages not being seen as any kind of flaw.

Warforger:
Dude, modern economists admit they don't know exactly how the economy works and why things happen, if they did there wouldn't be any question of economics there'd just be answers. I highly doubt a video game can accurately predict economic policies accurately if in real life we still don't know how it works.

"The economy is not a class you can master in college, to think otherwise is the pre-tense of knowledge"

Imperator_DK:

DrVornoff:

Imperator_DK:
Aww, I was hoping for Recettear.

That would probably make for a better thread.

On the other hand, using a number crunching 19th century industrial nation sim to make points about what would work in the real 21th century post-industrial economy might make for a more amusing thread.

I'm still smiling at the forceful suppression of the suffrages not being seen as any kind of flaw.

What's really scary is, he thinks that the way things have played out so far is good, and that he's running a democracy.

But then again, everyone but the poor are able to live comfortably, so of course things are running smoothly!

cthulhuspawn82:
You are wasting your time. Left wingers will automatically dismiss this as an inaccurate representation of real economics, and right wingers will automatically accept it as accurate. Had your game went in the opposite direction, the roles would be reversed.

Collecting data and evidence on this kind of things is pointless because people accept data that supports their beliefs, and dismiss data that disproves them. Basically, data is useless in influencing peoples opinion.

A valid way to influence opinion would be to say, "The political/social/gender/racial group you belong to believes this is true, therefore you must believe it as well." That's how people get their opinions.

Yes, confirmation bias is a real thing, but damn, lighten up a bit! I really hope you don't believe it's "how people get their opinions".

Imperator_DK:
Yep. Bailouts for everyone! _{of enough importance to be a pillar of the financial economy.}

See also: "Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor!"

Honestly this is an interesting way of doing things, sure it's a game and not really realistic but hey this way he does't make himself look like an idiot true it's not in today's time but common just see how this turns out. It's not like it will change anything, he is just experimenting after all.

Kahunaburger:

Hardcore_gamer:

I don't intend to be ruthless forever, but merely for long enough to make the nation ideal. Then afterward people can have all of those rights that are seen as good like more traditional voting, free speech etc. But only afterward, or else I risk them messing up my plans.

But isn't that a step backwards? Allowing "free speech" and "democracy" is just encouraging your population to think in terms of the self of body instead of the self of group and the self of humanity.

Ah, Chairman Shengji-Yang makes me smile...

If only your average everyday planned economy police state could get a free pass on efficiency rating below 0.

Hardcore_gamer:

Gethsemani:
I think there might also have been a revolution at that point, which might have been supported by the army

That's the problem with your argument right there.

My army supports ME and my government, not the angry lower classes.

Yes, the problem with Gethsemani's argument is that it doesn't recognize your brilliant mastery of charismatic politics, the evidence for which you've given us being approximately none. The problem. With Gethsemani's argument. Not yours.

Sure!

Hardcore_gamer:
Also, I would like to remind people that the workers starving wasn't intended, and that I lowered the taxes for them from 75% to only 25% once I saw that they were, because we needed workers for factories and also because we had enough money at that point for now anyways. The workers aren't all starving to death anymore. Also the middle class is now only paying about 40% tax and not 75%.

That still doesn't prove your system is stable and effective, and nor does it prove that low taxes are the key to success. I mean really, wouldn't at least TRYING to tax people proportionately make your system work a lot better? I feel like you're shoehorning in these policies without giving any thought to what would actually work best (which is more or less the EXACT SAME mistake politicians are making these days). And on top of that, your measure of success isn't how happy people are, how fairly they're being treated, or even how stable and fluid your economy and socio-economic systems are in general. You are saying you've succeeded simply because you haven't achieved total societal collapse. I'm pretty sure even the Great Depression and the Black Death never lead to total societal collapse, so perhaps you should come up with a more reasonable measure of success.

In this game I played I got everyone to obey me and the people with a voice were all extremely happy.

All 2% of them.

Hardcore_gamer:
-snip-

Also, I hope you realize how deliciously ironic it is that you've proven the only way the economic strategy of the party of "small government" can work is in a state of totalitarianism. I mean really, no matter what happens at this point your results cannot be applied to a democracy. You may as well just quit now, you've already disproven your stated hypothesis.

I am still curious as to how the socio-economic status is at the end. having a stable economic country with the people being not much more than slaves is not a good socio-economic scenario.

on the other hand if the lower class is the minority and not requiring government assistance beccause charitable organizations can afford to help them and the upper class and middle class almost as equals then you have a good socio-economic scenario.

Ofcourse those are worst case and best case scenario's where to be honest if the game wasnt rigged you would land someplace in the middle.

Your current run is clearly a worst case scenario with the only way to turn it around is to do a 360 on the policies.

JET1971:
with the only way to turn it around is to do a 360 on the policies.

180°, I believe. ;-)

Yeah, the more I read about this, the more awful it gets. You're installing more and more anti-democratic, totalitarian, big government measures, suppressing free thought and the only reason the masses haven't put your videogame avatar in a guillotine yet has got to be because the game lacks that capability. How in the world is this supposed to demonstrate the inherent superiority of your ideology if the only way to keep it running is through oppression? Through intrusion? Through the maximization of big government? Lilani got it right: You've already failed in your attempt at this point, no matter the eventual outcome.

Hardcore_gamer:
Snip

A few problems:

1. "Tax the middle and poor into the ground" I didn't think was a conservative idea, even as a short term solution. "Tax less," yes, not only for the rich. Can you decrease or eliminate government functions/programs instead.

2. Limiting freedom isn't one commonly seen either (except when it relates to "sins" as per religion or tradition, such as gay marriage, but that is another discussion entirely).

3. Economics of today are very different from the 19th century, so can you find a game with a modern day dynamics, or does this game reach too the modern day?

4. A game can only be a simulation of reality, it can't be 100% correct. As you noted, you get "motivation" points, you don't get that in real life.

While I agree with your economic principles, showing this with a game doesn't "prove it." In real life, proving a theory is nearly impossible, and a theory can only be disproven. The designers may of taken advise from idiots that don't know inflation from deflation, and think printing away debt is a good idea. And that is in hard science, like physics or biology. Economics is a lot more subjective.

Skeleon:

JET1971:
with the only way to turn it around is to do a 360 on the policies.

180°, I believe. ;-)

Yeah, the more I read about this, the more awful it gets. You're installing more and more anti-democratic, totalitarian, big government measures, suppressing free thought and the only reason the masses haven't put your videogame avatar in a guillotine yet has got to be because the game lacks that capability. How in the world is this supposed to demonstrate the inherent superiority of your ideology if the only way to keep it running is through oppression? Through intrusion? Through the maximization of big government? Lilani got it right: You've already failed in your attempt at this point, no matter the eventual outcome.

Pretty much. Now, if he'd said he was a fascist, he'd have a leg to stand on, though a very shaky one since it's still a game.

Becaue of all of the people who keep asking about game mechanics I these 4 pages will be useful:

http://www.paradoxian.org/vicky2wiki/Population

http://www.paradoxian.org/vicky2wiki/Party_Issues

http://www.paradoxian.org/vicky2wiki/Political_Reforms

http://www.paradoxian.org/vicky2wiki/Social_Reforms

Those are long reads, but those who keep wondering how things work will at least get a much better idea. I will also add this to the OP.

Also, I will continue the playthrough some more today and probably post the results as well!

Hardcore_gamer:

No, because I am more concerned about the end results.

See this trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UtopiaJustifiesTheMeans

I don't intend to be ruthless forever, but merely for long enough to make the nation ideal. Then afterward people can have all of those rights that are seen as good like more traditional voting, free speech etc. But only afterward, or else I risk them messing up my plans.

I think the true test of the system will be to see how people will react AFTER that happens. To see if they decide to stick with the nation that I will built or getting rid of it.

Youre going to build a society of freedom over a lake of poor blood and starving children? How wonderfull. Would YOU trust a government that promised future reward so it could initiate soul crushing poverty and starvation? Like hell you would. 90% of your country looks like ethiopia and the rest like the United Arab Emerates. Its a fucking appauling place and seriously if you need to build freedom over all encompassing 1984 style dictatorships then something here is seriously fucked up.

All this has proven to me is that right wing economic policies work but satan himself would flinch at using them. Seriously this stuff is mega fucked up. Youre basically using slavery. Youve made your policies look great be enacting a big brother like ragime to make them work.

BiscuitTrouser:
Youre going to build a society of freedom over a lake of poor blood and starving children? How wonderfull. Would YOU trust a government that promised future reward so it could initiate soul crushing poverty and starvation? Like hell you would. 90% of your country looks like ethiopia and the rest like the United Arab Emerates. Its a fucking appauling place and seriously if you need to build freedom over all encompassing 1984 style dictatorships then something here is seriously fucked up.

All this has proven to me is that right wing economic policies work but satan himself would flinch at using them. Seriously this stuff is mega fucked up. Youre basically using slavery. Youve made your policies look great be enacting a big brother like ragime to make them work.

The funny thing is that this kind of argumentation (we have to go through the hard times to get to utopia, sacrifices must be made, ends justify the means, the evil detractors must be suppressed) were also pretty much the reasoning behind the USSR's policies. The USSR was supposed to be transitory on the path to a true communistic utopia, wasn't it? Orwell was right: When you move far enough to the left and far enough to the right, the two meet up in totalitarianism.