Industrialisation and Civilisation are ruining my economy!

[TheFlemishDuck]

Really? Is that true? You converted every single pop in the provinces to clerks and they still made money? That seems rather stupid to me. Surely they should earn no money at all in that case (They hadnt got any cash reserves had they?). I was pretty sure I read somewhere that pops spilt there income etc (I thought thats partly why capatilists were bad early on, they took the poor and middle classes money).

Yep. And i can tell you more ,this was VIP ,and even in the much harder VIP this conversion actually made my income higher ,yes 100% unemployed craftsmen bring in more money than 100% fully employed farmers. (in this case in a fish RGO ,precious metals rgo's are different for that matter )
Afcourse my education costs increase to ,because the base techspeed becomes so high ,but due to the increased income and techspeed combination ,i can set my education slider to somewhat around 60% netting me about 1.20 techspeed (on a scale of max 2.00) ,with this having 0£ in daily surpluss ,while as 100% farmers i could set my budget to full spending ,with 0.7£ daily surplus ,but with a max techspeed of 0.70 i could thus only research at 0.70 .

And mind you ,that is VIP with decreased income ,in vaniila i could most likely have a larger surpluss thus higher education spending.

Sure i was making more profit with the farmers ,but i'm progressing much faster technoligy wise with the clerks ,soon my tech will improve as such that i will make more surplus that i could have when keeping to the 100% farmers ,meanwhile i already got my pops converted ,and the tech's will make a higher inpact on the income of clerks than it would on the income of farmers.

You can see that in most commercial techs ,like the bank tech's ,they usually only increase the tax of poor strata with 5% while the middle strata gets a 10% rise.Clerks are also more effeciant workers than craftsmen ,and the effeciancy gap rises with industrial tech's to.

These clerks i converted in that test didn't have cash reserve's from the start ,there wern't any industry's there anyway ,and they made a 3£ daily on the 50% tax slider as unemployed ,so i guess you can figure out that Clerks just have a base income regardless their status ,cash reserve income would usually go into tarrifs anyway.i know it sound illogical ,hence it's usally overlooked ,but i know from experience it's there.

No, the everyday cost of reforms wont matter, but the cost of enacting them will hit your hoard. Esp as he had £20 a day at the best of his economy. Thats £300000 over the whole time span he played if he had that much money every day. Thats not a lot to do all the things he has done and still have a reasonable sum to spend. Your idea is still possible, it would just take much longer to prevent debt and keep education and clerks.

In vanilla ,300.000£ is a heck lot of money ,hell i can industrialize and modernize greater country's in VIP with that money.The conversion costs in vanilla are a laugh once you are accustomed to VIP.Well i made his calculation ,in vanilla the conversion costs to get 90% pops clerks would be about 15000£ ,rediculously low really.Like i said if he enacted reforms as an unciv then i find that pretty unwise ,though i also would be surprized to see the costs for enactment in Abbysiania that high ,though it's possible.

Your method is excelent if imposed under the conditions you put down. However, as this is a particular case, and as the poster has not replyed then I am unsure how we can know for certain he is in the position that either of us presume he is in (unless you know for fact, in which case fair enough). I guess the reason he hasnt posted is that he has sussed out the prob, or has just given up. This really makes this discussion a little pointless (as I am agree your method is good, but am still unsure whether the poster can use it in his situation which we dont know and which is both the point of this thread and my reply (which was not meant as a general get civilised and survive stratergy but to try and help him out of his particular predicement)).

Well afcourse youre right ,youre also right that it makes the discussion then a bit pointless. But what i wanted to say in my previous posts was that i indeed went from the thought that he didn't do tottaly stupid thing's at this point ,seing that he could atleast get Abbysinia albeit civilized on such a date.My thought was that he was in the situation exactly as i discribe it ,as i know from experience that the period right after civilizing is usally a hard one presenting these problems of high education costs and low techspeed,especially with country's like China where you need to convert thousands of pops to get a reasonable techspeed. (or you could pay the +1000£ daily in education to get a measel 0.30)

This is just the strategy best used to get a new civilized country on par with the big boys technologicly and economicly as fast as possible.

Now indeed he could have screwed up a lot.He could have hughe debts and especially that would be a big problem.Another hughe problem could exist when he converted most of his national pops to soldiers to get the MIL score for civilizing ,afcourse then you need to demobilze these pops and you should have made the right preperrations to do this easily ,or you are going to loose years on this process.This is part of the civilizing country's strategy ,because often you need to convert and build army's way higher than you can support to get the civilizing event (but you dont need all that troops anymore once youre civilized) ,so it's obvious that once civilized you should disband that amount of army that you just cant support.

But again ,i think that when youre loosing money ,if youre spending much on millitary then it's pretty obvious how to tackle this deficit ,decreasing youre millitary afcourse.I was under the impression that even vicky noobs understood this and that mentioning this ,or considering this option ,was really unnesecary.

So in the end ,i made an educated guess that because he knew how to civilize that country ,that he knew enough of the game mechanisms to uderstand these other considerations ,but that his real problem was the one wich i describe and the one problem that many new civilized country's have.
Anyone who ever got China civilized will probably understand how hughe this problem can be.

 

[unmerged(37275)]

I had a nice reply, but I couldnt get my internet connection to work so I have lost it. I cant be bothered to write it out again.

All i can say is that I have never experianced that when civilising with China under VIP, and I think I know why. Its because I have unwittingly been using your method to sort out the problem. This is probably why I assumed that he had no money, because if he had loads then it should be quite a bit easier to correct (like I say it appears that I did it without really thinking). This is where my educated guess of his position came from. (if you have little income, poor factories and no education but lots of money then making clerks is quite obvious (in hindsight of course)). I therefore assumed the post was for someone in a much worse situation.

I think that if a player does not know to expect this problem, he could run out of money quite quickly through poor forward planning and spending it all in the drive for civilisation (not his own fault of course). Therefore it is surely hard to assume he has lots of money (but then it is equally hard to assume he has).

I also feel that the paragraph on things not to do were actually things that were done (from reading the early posts).

£300000 was the upper estimate, seeing as he wouldnt prob wouldnt be earning £20 a day for the whole 41 years, and also spent lots of other money. Lets say half, In VIP thats not really a lot of money.

However, this was really my reasoning as to why I thought that he had no money. Your reasoning is reversed, but no less wrong (or right) in my opion, just another way at looking at the same thing.

At the end of the day, i think we both interpreted what the problem was differently, assumed things that fit with our style of play and our views of the level of knowledge other players have etc. I have not, nor do I now, say that what you proposed was wrong. Indeed it all depends on how you interpret the situtation. Though I agree with hindsight that even with no money what I proposed wasnt nesseccarily the best course of action (it needs modifying somewhat). To that end, this has been a somewhat benificial discussion.

Maybe the clerk thing could be explained away as clerks running small insignificant private buisness that doesnt really show up as tons of goods but does make tax money (though an all clerk society? is that perhaps the way Britain is going (we dont make anything anymore really, so where does our economy come from?)

 

[clamp2004]

is that perhaps the way Britain is going (we dont make anything anymore really, so where does our economy come from?)

Um England produce alot of stuff today IRL.

 

[unmerged(37275)]

True, that was not meant as a definitive comment more of a joke of the skew in our economy. British manufacturing (that which I see as making stuff) no longer dominates our economy. Indeed, the service industry (that which I see as where clerks work) now makes up the majority of our economy. Exports are still reliant on manufacturing, but the economy is driven much more by services. It is possible that one day we will be almost completely reliant on services (as strong pound and cheap overseas labour causes manufacturing to relocate). The maufacturing sector of Britain is in a slow decline.

GDP by sector (2003) agriculture (0.9%), industry (26.5%), services (72.6%).

Since then, some reports say that manufacturing is around 18% of GDP.

But, as you say, at the moment manufacturing is still a part of the British economy, and is probably its most stable source of income.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Meh ,i send a pm to anonymous "and some number" ,asking him to explain his situation.

He will answer ,or else....

 

[unmerged(45852)]

(we dont make anything anymore really, so where does our economy come from?)

People buy services as well as goods. These days there is a lot more money to be made in the service sector than the manufactoring. Be thankful your country doesn't produce "anything" anymore.

 

[unmerged(37275)]

Meh ,i send a pm to anonymous "and some number" ,asking him to explain his situation.

He will answer ,or else....

That will certainly wrap things up. Though it could still be argued that either interpredation could have been correct from the information that was given. So, I suggest that once we know the correct situation whoever had the correct intepretation is the 'winner' and we will end this discussion.

People buy services as well as goods. These days there is a lot more money to be made in the service sector than the manufactoring. Be thankful your country doesn't produce "anything" anymore.

Yes, there is a lot of money in services, and a country can be very rich because of it. I do not have a problem with the country having more services, simply that it is harder to see where the economy comes from when you do not make "anything" anymore. We obviously sell our serivces to other countries and buisness, and our manufacturing that has relocated abroad will still use the services (such as finance). However, it feels like this sort of buisness is much more at the whim of the World economy than manufacturing alone would be so it is possible that it is more risky (outside investment fails, fewer sevices. Factories will still be producing goods however, so UK could be hit harder). Less manufacturing also helps to open up the trade deficit, which although not a bad thing in itself at the moment could cause problems in the future. However, this is only one school of thought, and there are many others that disagree. Seeing as it is such a success at the moment, it is very hard to know what would happen if X Y or Z occured.

Oh, and as you can see, I cant quote. How do you go about quoting?

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

That will certainly wrap things up. Though it could still be argued that either interpredation could have been correct from the information that was given. So, I suggest that once we know the correct situation whoever had the correct intepretation is the 'winner' and we will end this discussion.

LOL ,it's just a discussion ,i could care less for such "winner" or loser contests.We just had initial perceptions of how his situation looked like and we have advice according to our assumptions ,when our views classhed a debate arose ,not because of the nature of our advice ,but the fact that iht had to be build on interpretation and one other's interpretation would logicly leave other advice ,this however does not mean that there isn't merrit in both aproaches ,according to wich situation it stems from.

 

[unmerged(37275)]

I too do not care about winning or losing (hence the 'winning'). I just felt that we were in danger of going around in circles with this debate, and so I was simply looking for a quick solution to end it. I took your pming of the poster as an attempt to try and prove your interpretation was correct (and therefore try to 'win' the disscusion). I felt that you had perhaps missed the point of my argument and that you were only seeing it as black and white (either my interpretation is correct, or yours is). To save the effort it would take to continue the debate in which both sides have vaild points, and neither of us are right (or indeed wrong), I was willing to let you have it in such a black and whilte way (I also am starting to feel this post is getting a little lengthy). I obviously misjudged and misinterpreted your actions, and I apoligize for that.

It appears we both now agree on the issue at hand. As we have both now accepted, it depends on the interpretation of the situation. That doesnt, of course, mean that advice given through such interpretaions is any good (a quick disclaimer to any advice I give ).I feel we can reasonalby leave it at that.