Social policy decisions and coming political flamewars...

[unmerged(5605)]

Hey all.

I am really, really happy that Vicky is going to have a social policy element. But I was thinking the other day that no matter what, people will be unhappy with some of the decisions made, as it ultimately gets into politcal arguments that could be considered subjective. Let me give you an example.

While free trade has been claimed to cause economic growth, looking at history any nation that has grown economically has not used free trade, and has instead used high tarrifs, education spending, theft of intellectual property, strict currency controls, ect. This goes for every single nation, from Europe to the U.S. to Japan, and more recently South Korea, and now China. I don't know what decision Paradox made, but if they have given free trade an economic boost I won't be happy, as I'm sure others won't be either.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are libertarians out there who will be incensed that a social safety net makes a country more stable, instead wanting it to have negative effects.

I'm sure this stuff can be modded later on, but there is *no* way to discuss this stuff without it quicky falling into modern day politics.

I dunno. Some statement by Paradox on why they chose the political viewpoint for the issues they did would be cool. Considering they are Swedes, I'm expecting a more even handed approach to left-wing politics than you would get from an American game. I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

[unmerged(10416)]

hrmmph

It's a game about the 19th century, and things were different back then. I don't think there's all that much flame war potential, after all, scores of people have written very intelligent books on the economic relations in that particular period.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Good point.

Also, to keep the game balanced and to make choices "painful" every decision should have a negative influence somewhere. I bet people aren't going to agree with some of these consequences...

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by eschaton
While free trade has been claimed to cause economic growth, looking at history any nation that has grown economically has not used free trade, and has instead used high tarrifs, education spending, theft of intellectual property, strict currency controls, ect. This goes for every single nation, from Europe to the U.S. to Japan, and more recently South Korea, and now China. I don't know what decision Paradox made, but if they have given free trade an economic boost I won't be happy, as I'm sure others won't be either.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are libertarians out there who will be incensed that a social safety net makes a country more stable, instead wanting it to have negative effects.

First, let me say I find your evidence against free trade questionable; just because many newly inustrializing countries in the 19th century used child labor doen't mean child labor was the best way to industrialize, it's just how most countries did it. If anything, I would say by restricting trade, the countries hurt their own development and the quality of life of their populations, since they lost many benefits of specialization and the efficiency foreign compeition brings.

Regardless, though, a debate about free trade is better served in the OT forum. What is important in Victoria is that each decision has trade offs. You may believe tarriffs provide nothing but benefits and I may believe free trade provides nothing but benefits, but in game it should be a balance.

For example, maybe tarrifs will provide a bonus to starting new industries, while free trade will provide a bonus to expanding existing industries. Just an example, but the point is there should be a trade off.

 

[Jadelith]

Re: Re: Social policy decisions and coming political flamewars...

Originally posted by IEX Totalview
First, let me say I find your evidence against free trade questionable; just because many newly inustrializing countries in the 19th century used child labor doen't mean child labor was the best way to industrialize, it's just how most countries did it. If anything, I would say by restricting trade, the countries hurt their own development and the quality of life of their populations, since they lost many benefits of specialization and the efficiency foreign compeition brings.

well, what you say about the living standarts of the population is correct, but I don't think that it was the thing eschaton was pointing out. using child labor and so forth was a better way of industrializing, since it provided cheap labor.
Also, if everyone is forced to buy from your products rather than exports, you make more profit and give more as taxes.

I hadn't though about this before, but eschaton may be correct...

 

[unmerged(9895)]

maybe it could be done like tariffs increase income from trade, while free trade lowers the income slightly but improves your relations with other nations and helps increase population from immigrants. just an idea

 

[unmerged(5605)]

To IEX, I fully expect you and others disagree with me here. I was just providing an example where I might disagree with Paradox. I'm not going to bother defending myself because I don't want this to turn into an OT rant. From everything I have read about economic development though, free markets help countries after they have industrialized and gained competitiveness, but any country that has tried to industrialize this way has ruined their economy.

Anyway, I do think that the policy decisions, especially in the later half of the game, are relevant to today. We still have minimum wages, hours laws, pensions, all the same regulations that started then. I agree with the posters who say balance in all things will be for the best. I just hope everyone else does too.

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by eschaton
To IEX, I fully expect you and others disagree with me here. I was just providing an example where I might disagree with Paradox. I'm not going to bother defending myself because I don't want this to turn into an OT rant.

From everything I have read about economic development though, free markets help countries after they have industrialized and gained competitiveness, but any country that has tried to industrialize this way has ruined their economy.

I won't bother responding, since I agree we don't want an OT argument.

Anyway, I do think that the policy decisions, especially in the later half of the game, are relevant to today. We still have minimum wages, hours laws, pensions, all the same regulations that started then. I agree with the posters who say balance in all things will be for the best. I just hope everyone else does too.

That is exactly my point. The most important thing is not whether free trade or tarriffs are superior in real life since no one really knows, but rather they have semi-logical trade-offs in-game.