Vickynomics Panel

[nuarbnellaffej]

My concern is based on my experience playing Vic 2 only, there's no any quotes that could prove the same for Vic 3. I would be happy to be wrong. By the way, could you point me to the quote that makes you believe there could be "tons of smaller markets" within a single country?

That’s not exactly what I said, but nonetheless I’m looking now for the quote, but it may have been in one of the podcast videos.

If I find the relevant discussion I will post it here. Needless to say from what I’ve heard/seen I don’t think British India and and the British Isles(or geographically separated regions in general) will be a part of the same market in the way that they were in Vicky2, but will instead have their trade bottlenecked through the capacity of shipping ports along with the availability of merchant marine shipping.

 

[Emikke88]

Will Vicky3's economic system work more like reality, or more like ideologies claim?

Would it be possible to include realistic economic mode, and a fantasy one?

In the period Laissez-Faire dominated because non-intervention gave the greatest growth. The Communist economic system used before Leninism created more inequality in Russia than in the US and later it was estimated that during Fascist Italy, the total control of Fascism and in Soviet Russia came at the cost of half of GDP.

Will taxation cause less growth in GDP? And will taxation be realistic, that above a certain threshold there will be a point of diminishing returns?

Will there be humanitarian crisises due to economic mismanagement like hyperinflation?

 

[Axe99]

Will Vicky3's economic system work more like reality, or more like ideologies claim?

Would it be possible to include realistic economic mode, and a fantasy one?

In the period Laissez-Faire dominated because non-intervention gave the greatest growth. The Communist economic system used before Leninism created more inequality in Russia than in the US and later it was estimated that during Fascist Italy, the total control of Fascism and in Soviet Russia came at the cost of half of GDP.

Will taxation cause less growth in GDP? And will taxation be realistic, that above a certain threshold there will be a point of diminishing returns?

Will there be humanitarian crisises due to economic mismanagement like hyperinflation?

I'd be very cautious of assuming laissez-faire dominated (many "laissez-faire" countries had significant state intervention, often even moreso than the current US (a good deal less laissez-faire than it presents itself) does now) because it was laissez-faire. I'd also be cautious of the simplistic "less tax = more growth" - as with everything, the devil is in the details (some economic activities function better run publicly - ie state-coordinated, some better by the market with a lot of regulation, some better by the market with not much regulation). Economics is very, very complicated, and without a deep dive into the numerous factors involved, making assumptions about "systems" is fraught with danger.

 

[Emikke88]

I'd be very cautious of assuming laissez-faire dominated (many "laissez-faire" countries had significant state intervention, often even moreso than the current US (a good deal less laissez-faire than it presents itself) does now) because it was laissez-faire. I'd also be cautious of the simplistic "less tax = more growth" - as with everything, the devil is in the details (some economic activities function better run publicly - ie state-coordinated, some better by the market with a lot of regulation, some better by the market with not much regulation). Economics is very, very complicated, and without a deep dive into the numerous factors involved, making assumptions about "systems" is fraught with danger.

The data is rather clear on the issue. Less intervention, less control, more growth. But it is of course relative to more intervention, more control, less growth. When both follow the trends of the market.

No economist worth his salt would deny the superiority laissez-faire over a steered marked. And of course a non-regulated market system is regulated by laws and customs which facilitate the market. The difference is that the state or some central authority is not steering the market. The point of contestion is if the lack of growth is not worth it, because it can relieve human suffering, create infrastructure quickly which might be in the national interest. A railway might never pay for itself, but if it ties two regions together which might prevent separatism, and allows for faster movement of troops and goods, it might still be a sound investment. But it is undeniable that when a decision is made politically, which ignores market prices, it will use resources less efficiently than the free market would have.

And even if we were bothered enough to say that this does not account for post-Keynsian economics, that is a valid point but post-Keynesian economics began in 1936. The end year of the game. So although a lot has happened in the field of economics since the 19th century. It would be a shame not to salute the dominant economic theory of the age in a game about that age featuring an economic system.

But that was reality. In a fantasy aspect of the game, it would be very interesting to see a Springtime of Europe, the Revolutions of 1848, where Socialism or Socialist Anarchism truly worked economically and became dominant. It could be really interesting to play a game mode where it was not set in stone which economical policy, or ideology was going to be dominant.

 

[Axe99]

No economist worth his salt would deny the superiority laissez-faire over a steered marked.

A laissez-faire market is still steered - "market forces" are for more than the individual preferences of "standard" consumers. I mean this as gently as possible, but your statements point towards a caricatured, dichotomous portrayal of the two, when really they're both points on a scale.

The difference is that the state or some central authority is not steering the market.

The structure of the market also steers the market - it's not possible to disentangle the two. Again, a matter of degree, not red = laissez faire, blue = controlled market

But it is undeniable that when a decision is made politically, which ignores market prices, it will use resources less efficiently than the free market would have.

Actually, private sector waste is commonplace - what you've said here is a popular myth, but a myth all the same. What matters is the quality of the incentive structure and the quality of the actors within that incentive structure. The profit/not-go-out-of-business incentive, with people who can think in terms of strategic, long-term self-interest, works very well - but very, very few humans, senior managers and CEOs included, are good at thinking about long-term self-interest strategically. The longer-term the goal/benefit for society, the less effective that simple, short-term pricing signals are in terms of getting efficient results. Climate change is perhaps both the largest example of this, but there are plenty of others. Mentioning that example also highlights the "tragedy of the commons" - the most obvious situation when simple free-market market structures fall down.

And even if we were bothered enough to say that this does not account for post-Keynsian economics, that is a valid point but post-Keynesian economics began in 1936.

Keep in mind that while a post-Keynesian understanding of economics obviously is something that occurs after the Vicky timeframe, people during the timeframe undertook economic interventions that could be understood as Keynesian, even if not labelled as such.

But that was reality.

Bear in mind that economics is very, very complicated, and even the best in the field don't understand everything - your characterisation of economic understanding asd "done and dusted" here is at odds with the vast majority of the economics writing that I've come across (and at odds with all of the stuff that was of any quality). It's not as simple as 'we know how it really worked - this is what should happen' - economics is not that simple. Indeed, the discipline is only now, after well over a hundred years, starting at a broad scale to treat humans as if they aren't rational economic maximisers - something that was plain to see back in the days of Adam Smith (Adam Smith actually wasn't as silly to think humans were rational economic maximisers either - he's often misrepresented by people that would benefit from reading his work).

 

[Emikke88]

Bear in mind that economics is very, very complicated

Dude. It's a discussion about a economic system in a game. It literally is a characature of reality.

And not every school of economic thought uses models they don't understand themselves. And most fields of Social Sciences have abandoned fatalism in favor of a more rationalist approach. Macro Economics is lagging behind in that area.

It is a whole debate was essentially settled in the 60s and 70s. And has now been confirmed by long-term studies and data. But that is something you can look up yourself, because it is completely off-topic.

 

[Axe99]

It is a whole debate was essentially settled in the 60s and 70s.

It really wasn't - I studied economics at uni in the 90s and it wasn't settled then, and I've continued to work in a related field since, and the only people that argue it's settled in the literature are those pushing a political point.

Dude. It's a discussion about a economic system in a game. It literally is a characature of reality.

It's an abstraction of reality, to be sure, but not necessarily a caricature (a caricature often involves exaggeration of certain features well beyond what would be considered sensible abstraction - think the size of a politician's nose in political cartoons). I think we should agree to disagree here and let the conversation move on - but if you're interested, I do recommend reading some contemporary writing on behavioural economics.

 

[BotherMe]

No economist worth his salt would deny the superiority laissez-faire over a steered marked.

US gdp per capita growth from 1928 to 1985 was about 4.6% per year. The Soviet equivalent was around 4.2% a year. A significant difference, but not dramatic. And that includes WW2 and the Brezhnev stagnation. And then you have to ask yourself if the US economy has ever really been “laissez-faire”. It has always had the state direct the economy in a huge way. Regulating standards, mandating minimum wages, taxing and subsidizing different sectors to encourage growth in particular parts of the economy, and outright nationalizing huge parts of it even in the US, for example rail traffic and education. There are no laissez-faire economies to contrast with the command economies of the Communist world to determine which of the two would function better.

 

[EGaffney]

I don't know of any attempt to construct Soviet GDP growth statistics for non-political reasons, including the official statistics. In general, I would imagine V3 will lean heavily toward wish fulfilment for the player, so you will be able to have an anarchist community with high employment and long-term capital investment, etc. They will design for fun.

 

[GrafKeks]

The data is rather clear on the issue. Less intervention, less control, more growth. But it is of course relative to more intervention, more control, less growth. When both follow the trends of the market.

No economist worth his salt would deny the superiority laissez-faire over a steered marked.

Wait till you reach market-failure in econ 101.....
Both theoretical and then practical you're in for a ride.

And of course a non-regulated market system is regulated by laws and customs which facilitate the market. The difference is that the state or some central authority is not steering the market. The point of contestion is if the lack of growth is not worth it, because it can relieve human suffering, create infrastructure quickly which might be in the national interest. A railway might never pay for itself, but if it ties two regions together which might prevent separatism, and allows for faster movement of troops and goods, it might still be a sound investment. But it is undeniable that when a decision is made politically, which ignores market prices, it will use resources less efficiently than the free market would have.

I take 200 on externalized costs and another 500 for what is micro-economics, what are initial investment-costs

And even if we were bothered enough to say that this does not account for post-Keynsian economics, that is a valid point but post-Keynesian economics began in 1936. The end year of the game. So although a lot has happened in the field of economics since the 19th century. It would be a shame not to salute the dominant economic theory of the age in a game about that age featuring an economic system.

And not every school of economic thought uses models they don't understand themselves.

I take 2000 on definition of theory and what is science, and ehhhm models they don't understand themselves I guess I take what is a mathematical model, how do postulates work and John von Neumann. Although I assume by schools you mean heterodox a.k.a not scientifically vetted is meant, then that's possible, I do maths if it's not using maths a.k.a if the writers can't at the very least use 2nd order logic and set-theory they can't formulate a proper theory anyway.

But that was reality. In a fantasy aspect of the game, it would be very interesting to see a Springtime of Europe, the Revolutions of 1848, where Socialism or Socialist Anarchism truly worked economically and became dominant. It could be really interesting to play a game mode where it was not set in stone which economical policy, or ideology was going to be dominant.

Evolution gets stuck on local maxima by the way.




Others have answered as well already. I tried to formulate what is wrong in a more homorous tone this time as it is funny to some. I included what can be solved via googling.

Edit: Axe actually answered proper my post can be ignored.