Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
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.
 
Riccardo93 said:
((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...))
Click to expand...

((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.))
 
(( 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. ))
 
Well, regardless of their ideals, they seem to be doing better than the Democrats. They've got majority in Congress don't they?
 
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...))
 
((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. ))
 
thekinguter said:
I still do not understand the Federal Party. Anyone care to explain?
Click to expand...
((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.))
 
Mr Jarvis, the plan for a 50% cuts means you have no choice but to risk soldiers lives. Whether it be fewer men on the battlefield, a worse supply line, or flat out poorer weapons. Considering how quickly France came to pieces, it is very important that we do not assume safety on land just because they are friendly to us now. Need I remind you that there are several major factions in South America that dislike us for our influence in the area. Our situation can change rapidly, and a strong navy does not protect Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona.
 
((I saw some people saying Roderick is rich, and I'm too lazy to go back and quote so I hope you guys remember who said it.
Roderick Khur is not rich. He does not own any part of of Jamous-Khur Works except for "Khur" within the name, and now he only receives a "small" quarterly paycheck for it with Jamous' murder. Relations between Charles Jamous and Roderick Khur are not as smooth as Khur-Jamous and Jamous-Roderick were, which I will show once Roderick is done with politics. But yeah, Roderick isn't rich or some Industrial Baron, Charles Jamous is :D))
 
Well, General Gafferty, that is why we must change our foreign policy. If we were more peaceful and trade-oriented, rather than interventionist and imperialist, we would have avoided the great majority of these problems (which my grandfather has talked about for decades...). If we downsize the military, and we must make cuts somewhere, we will not severely hamper our defence, provided we pull back from our Empire. In fact, a smaller army, and more humble foreign policy could very well make us safer!
 
Or it could make us a ripe target for our enemies and those jealous of our wealth and success. Already the UPCA has shown its hatred towards us, a decrease in our current standing army would do nothing but encourage them to continue meddling within our affairs and turning the Americas into an anti-american region. I do not advocacy way, but a small military does nothing for our safety, and neither will being passive and backing down within the realm of foreign affairs.

-Senator Roderick Khur, Independent.
 
A small army is much easier to train, equip, and maintain than a large one. The UPCA will most likely make a very common mistake in judgement, following the popular "Bigger is better" mentality, and their soldiers will be of less quality than ours.

If they attack us, or if their actions force us to attack them, then they will lose.
 
Their soldiers are already of lesser quality, with our current military following your so called "Bigger is Better" thoughts. There is no laws of nature or humanity that say we can not have both a large and well-equiped/trained army. Our military is second to none but by only a small margin. I am not saying that the UPCA is a direct threat to us, but they are an indirect threat. They will never be able to stand against us, but they may be able to plant the seed of hetred within the minds of Southern and Central American minds against the citizens of the United States of America. I shudder to think of the day where our citizens may not be able to safely travel from our glorious nation.
 
And how will having a bigger army help that? They will hate us because the UPCA told them to hate them if we don't have one, and they will hate us for enforcing our will on them if we do. Look at Chile-- Our military is large, and yet they despise us with a passion, what with their "second Declaration of Independence".
 
That is why we must not enforce our will upon them, but stand to have our people shown in such a negative light. We hold garrisons outside of the US and her territories, so our army is no threat to the people of Central and South America. All this nonsensual talk of a "Second Independence" is simply the ravings of the aristocratic elite of Chile, who have seen their own profits drop due to our supperior products. In time the Chilean people will realise what it is that their leaders are doing, and will remove them through just elections, and if the Chilean Elite revoke those elections, than it is our sacred duty to protect democracy and assist the Chilean people with the MEF.

-Senator Roderick Khur, Independent
 
Gloa said:
((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).

*snip*)
Click to expand...

(( Excellent summary. I especially like the bit contrasting the Federals' focus on issues of the day from the other parties, including now defunction parties, usual focus on the role of government or of some ideological point in general. ))
 
It is quite simple to maintain a large yet still well equiped army. There are still many nations out there who are jealous of our greatness. But a weakened military, is never a good option. My issue is the massive cuts that Mr Jarvis proposed. Cutting half of our military will mean that we can either not efficiently equip our troops or have to cut away our already trained soldiers and make our army far less powerful. Either way, it is not worth it. The budget must be reset through other means, and most importantly, the major employers of our nation must be kept afloat.

Under my administration there will be cuts.
Several programs will find a small portion of their funding removed to that we can ballance ourselves. However, focusing only on one area whilst also expanding Health Care is not the correct path to follow. Forcing companies to pay more when they are despreatelly trying to get a profit without laying of workers is not the way to end a recession.

Once more I say to Mr Jarvis, your policies would be excellent in a time of profuse economic growth but not in the middle of one of our worst recessions since Andrew Jackson.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back