I'd like to congratulate the developers, Laissez faire is now working quite well. Capitalists opening factories, hiring and firing workers, closing factories...
LF nice now
- Thread starter Biges
- Start date
-
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.
Agreed, I was just able to peacefully grow my way to third place under an Anarcho-Liberal Confederacy. Feels good, man.
I'm still smarter than capis, though. Of course, part of that is because I know that automobiles, fuel, telephones, radios, and airplanes will always be big money makers. My capis, who haven't taken a history course in the Victorian period, don't know that. 
Probably wouldn't work as well if the game modelled the business cycle
True, but only after you've researched most of the banking line. Unless, of course, you've invented Ludwig von Mises.
Yeah I was going to ask if AI regulated Capitalists know what they're doing now. I can trust them?
They are not the best for sure, and any human would do better than them, but...the +25% output is so great that you cant really be a super industrial power without Laisser faire.
Plus, under Laisser faire, the capis build and upgrade like crazy.
Plus, under Laisser faire, the capis build and upgrade like crazy.
Probably wouldn't work as well if the game modelled the business cycle
Austrian Economics shows that only paper money i.e. money not backed by anything like all currencies today can cause the business cycle.
As people used gold (except for brief periods like after the civil war in America) this doesnt happen because there arent any bubbles to burst.
What I would like to see though is that factories get built and expanded faster if a Laissez Faire party is in power, because if you have a big province with high pop growth, alot of pops will be unemployed most of the time. All my factories are expanding all the time but as soon as one of the 8 Level 30+ factories goes bust or makes a loss, people there will never be fully employed again, as the capis only think short term.
Just posting data isn't an argument; you need to understand the nuanced historical context of the issue. Read some Tom Woods for an Austrian explanation of this.
Anyway, we should get back on topic before a mod closes this thread.
The data soundly refutes the notion that "only paper money i.e. money not backed by anything like all currencies today can cause the business cycle". I don't need to create an argument to refute someone else's.
The business cycle is pretty integral to liberal economics, this isn't off topic
Untill the Gold bubble bursts.Austrian Economics shows that only paper money i.e. money not backed by anything like all currencies today can cause the business cycle.
As people used gold (except for brief periods like after the civil war in America) this doesnt happen because there arent any bubbles to burst.
Fair enough, but I don't think he articulated the Austrian thesis in a way that best captures what it's really saying. The idea is that government-sanctioned fractional reserve banking causes excessive and unsustainable investment via inflation/the imposition of artificially low interest rates. It's not just about "paper money" (which we should really call "fiat money", anyway).
You also need to understand that most Austrians don't consider the 19th century a perfect "sound money" paradise, and there were several mistakes made during the period. It was just MUCH better than what happened after the Fed was formed. Again, read some Tom Woods (and maybe some Rothbard as well) if you want the best-articulated Austrian explanation for this data.
Then, since the Austro-libertarian paradise has never existed, either way you look at it the game should model the business cycle.
It existed to a certain extent in medieval Iceland, the early colonial US, and the Old West, but I understand your point.
Maybe the economy should become more volatile as you research more and more financial techs? I think that would be a fair compromise.
Not really, the American economy has become more stable since government began intervening more. I don't pretend to know the direction of the causation, but the correlation is the opposite of what you say it is.
I would rather just see prices of a commodity forced down by a very small percentage for a few months by the game engine every time a factory producing that good is closed for whatever reason. That would send down the rate of profit for the remaining factories until the effect wore off (simulating the self-fulfilling prophecy of capitalists reducing their output when they think a downturn is coming) and the factories still in business after the knock-on bankruptcies ended would begin expanding production to fill the gap left by their rivals (the beginning of the expansionary phase).
Here's an experiment: load up an economic powerhouse of a country in a midgame campaign (say, America in 1880) and close every factory. Then wait a month and see if there were any spikes or drops in prices on the ledger graph. I didn't see any happen.
This does not seem really obvious, though it's a common talking point. I think you could equally well argue that, since 1913, there have been fewer recessions but worse ones. Additionally you have to consider that you cannot directly compare the period 1880-1945, when the US was one of many industrial economies, to 1945-1965 (which is usually the period people speak of when extolling the virtues of regulations, high taxes, and unions), when the US was the only industrial economy that wasn't a bombed-out hellhole. A lot of what is often attributed to US-internal arrangements can be much better explained in terms of having zero competition for manufactured goods.
I suggest that, when an issue is contentious at the highest levels of the economic profession, nobody is going to prove it one way or another in forum posts. Every authority on one side is matched by one on the other.
Good points. Even so, researching the technologies shouldn't increase instability since there's a better way to model market distortions: industrial subsidies.
Theres no such thing as a gold bubble. The only reason people invest capital in gold today is because of lack of confidence in fiat currency.
On Recessions, after the introduction of the FED and other central banks in the 20s and 30s, recessions occured roughly every 10 to 15 years, almost always preceded by a boom in a specific industry.
In the last few decades we have had the Housing Bubble, Dot Com bubble, the recession in the early 90s and the ones in the 70s and 80s. This pattern is quite regular, only interrupted by the world wars.
I dont know of any recessions that didnt happen because of either war or currency debasement/introduction of fiat money, if there are any, please show me.
Never has the government intervened more than today and rarely have people been worse off than today in one of the most underpopulated and rich countries in the world.
Back on topic, I also like that any country that gets taken over by communists almost immediately suffers a massive economic collapse. In my last game, France, Russia and America were economic Superpowers (#3, #5 and #4) until they all got taken over by communists. Their IND score dropped from several thousand to less than a hundred. Theyre prestige rank didnt change much. This is quite realistic
