Are all ideologies equally playable?

[Alexander Seil]

What would you call an absolute monarchy (or, even better, a Consitutional Monarchy, since it doesn't have to worry about militancy hits a lot for changing parties) who decided to appoint the Communist Party into office in order to take advantage of the Communist's Planned Economy?

If they go whole hog with the Communist economic model, I'd just call it a Communist state.

Or would you call Cambodia a monarchy for the few months that Sihanouk was in power in the middle 1970's in alliance with Red Khmers? :rofl:

In the end, it's meaningless semantics.

EDIT: I have to say that Cambodia is a supremely useful examples in these Vicky II discussions about how weird things can really get in the real world...not the first time I'm using it.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Voters have reacted to hardship in strikingly different ways. I hope the game can represent that in a better way than crash = more socialists. (I'll be happy if they can model a depression at all, come to that. The 'Great Depression' event in V:R was a complete flog job.)

 

[Duuk]

But when you don't have enough money, wouldn't it be logical to demand minimum wage, free doctors, pension funds for when you grow old, safer workplace so you don't get hurt or the voting right, so you can elect someone who will give this to you?

Actually, historically speaking recessions and market crashes are massively deflationary. When people have no jobs, they'll take low paying jobs, and in a truly lassez faire economic model wages would fall accordingly and the demand for a minimum wage would be LESS of a force. In effect, POPs should shut up and take it when the economy is bad (for economic reforms). However, they SHOULD become more militant and demand for systemic overhauls would rise. In effect, when the economy is bad social reforms take a back seat to revolution.

You see concern for reform and social justice only when the middle-class is fat and happy. People only care about others AFTER their own needs are met. So in Vicky terms: When a middle class POP has money and all needs met, it then desires a shorter working day, medical benefits, and a minimum wage for all workers. Until that point, they're still busy looking out for number 1 (themselves).

THAT, to me, is what would make an ideal Vicky simulation. The difference between social reform and revolution. How do you balance that, after all? If you spend so much and tax so much on social reforms that the middle class isn't getting its own needs met, do they become more conservative pining for the "Old Days" and become reactionaries? But if you don't have the lower classes taken care of, they become militant Communists.

 

[telesien]

Actually, historically speaking recessions and market crashes are massively deflationary. When people have no jobs, they'll take low paying jobs, and in a truly lassez faire economic model wages would fall accordingly and the demand for a minimum wage would be LESS of a force. In effect, POPs should shut up and take it when the economy is bad (for economic reforms). However, they SHOULD become more militant and demand for systemic overhauls would rise. In effect, when the economy is bad social reforms take a back seat to revolution.

You see concern for reform and social justice only when the middle-class is fat and happy. People only care about others AFTER their own needs are met. So in Vicky terms: When a middle class POP has money and all needs met, it then desires a shorter working day, medical benefits, and a minimum wage for all workers. Until that point, they're still busy looking out for number 1 (themselves).

THAT, to me, is what would make an ideal Vicky simulation. The difference between social reform and revolution. How do you balance that, after all? If you spend so much and tax so much on social reforms that the middle class isn't getting its own needs met, do they become more conservative pining for the "Old Days" and become reactionaries? But if you don't have the lower classes taken care of, they become militant Communists.

Of course, when you take a period of real depression, you are right. We just have a bit different understanding what "going poorly" means. I didn't picture it as recession of previously rich country, but simply as not-so-well running country with poor POPs.

 

[luciusETRUR]

What I didn't like about Victoria I was if you wanted to get better economics, you had to get Keynesian economics, which is a theory of economics I completely reject. I like that Mises and Hayek were inventions in the game, but I don't like that Austrian school is not represented in the game.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

What I didn't like about Victoria I was if you wanted to get better economics, you had to get Keynesian economics, which is a theory of economics I completely reject. I like that Mises and Hayek were inventions in the game, but I don't like that Austrian school is not represented in the game.

Though I agree with you entirely, the stress should go on a realistic economic model; only then we can start worrying about doctrine.

 

[Colon]

What I didn't like about Victoria I was if you wanted to get better economics, you had to get Keynesian economics, which is a theory of economics I completely reject. I like that Mises and Hayek were inventions in the game, but I don't like that Austrian school is not represented in the game.

What exactly are you referring to when you say that you 'had' to get 'Keynesian' economics to have a better economy?

 

[Surgünoglu]

Austrian school was a postwar phenomenon which codified those theorists' opinions, I thought.

 

[unmerged(56576)]

Germany provides the single best example of an autocracy which survived intact. So does Austria, and uh, Russia, and uh, the Ottomans, and pretty much most of the countries in Europe.

The "Old Order" did not fall due to Liberalism. It fell because of the Great War. Sure there was conciliation, and sure there were Parliaments, but these were limited in influence to the extent they could direct the autocracies.

Even in France, the triumph of liberal ideals since before 1836 did not translate itself into parliamentarian governments. It did so in Dictatorships.

 

[Garak]

Now now, let's not turn the game's model into a debate over more contemporary political issues. Just chalk it up to the need to simplify or gloss over things for gameplay reasons.

 

[unmerged(81228)]

What I didn't like about Victoria I was if you wanted to get better economics, you had to get Keynesian economics, which is a theory of economics I completely reject.

Even more: they are showing that world is round (as you can sail from Japan to America) and not hold by four elephants, when Spherical Earth Theory is soemthing I completely reject :rofl:

 

[unmerged(196349)]

Even more: they are showing that world is round (as you can sail from Japan to America) and not hold by four elephants, when Spherical Earth Theory is soemthing I completely reject :rofl:

:rofl: Classical theories for the win! :rofl:

 

[unmerged(56576)]

If Smithian Economics postulate the earth is held by four elephants, Keynesian economics do postulate the elephants still hold it, but demand your tax money for it .

 

[Earl Uhtred]

If Smithian Economics postulate the earth is held by four elephants, Keynesian economics do postulate the elephants still hold it, but demand your tax money for it .

Makes perfect sense: if we give the elephants handouts, the sticky bun market will find its own equilibrium

 

[unmerged(196349)]

Makes perfect sense: if we give the elephants handouts, the sticky bun market will find its own equilibrium

But the argument is, do we really need the elephants? What have they ever done for us?

 

[luciusETRUR]

What exactly are you referring to when you say that you 'had' to get 'Keynesian' economics to have a better economy?

From a gaming perspective, it is a researched technology that gives you bonuses to economic gain. That would mean I 'need' to get it.

Austrian school was a postwar phenomenon which codified those theorists' opinions, I thought.

As it is called the Austrian School, however it is no different than "Keynesian" economics, that it was seen in infant forms in the late 18th and early 19th century. Alexander Hamilton, for example, had very much a Keynesian economic view, although definitely not nearly as much Keynes and I think a bit more sensible. Adam Smith, who advocated free market and the "secret hand", would I suppose be an early Austrian, although I wouldn't say he was nearly as "Austrian" as Mises or anyone after Mises.

 

[telesien]

From a gaming perspective, it is a researched technology that gives you bonuses to economic gain. That would mean I 'need' to get it.



As it is called the Austrian School, however it is no different than "Keynesian" economics, that it was seen in infant forms in the late 18th and early 19th century. Alexander Hamilton, for example, had very much a Keynesian economic view, although definitely not nearly as much Keynes and I think a bit more sensible. Adam Smith, who advocated free market and the "secret hand", would I suppose be an early Austrian, although I wouldn't say he was nearly as "Austrian" as Mises or anyone after Mises.

Is this really worse then colectivist theory giving bonus to cappies income?

The world is full of liberal and interventionalistic economical schools. Calling everyone liberal Austrian and everyone interventionalistic Keynesian isn't realy good idea.

 

[EGaffney]

Is this really worse then colectivist theory giving bonus to cappies income?

The world is full of liberal and interventionalistic economical schools. Calling everyone liberal Austrian and everyone interventionalistic Keynesian isn't realy good idea.

It's certainly not. Everyone derives their ideas from Smith anyway; he formalised economics as a discipline, so we should expect him to be above the schools of thought that developed.

Mun -> Smith (in contradiction to Mun) -> Ricardo -> "The Classics" -> Keynes (in contradiction to the Classics)
Cantillon -> Smith -> Ricardo -> Menger -> Mises