Victoria's (19th Century) liberal bias

[Andrelvis]

Keynesianism was the best economic tech,

Keynes wasn't socialist In any case, Keynesianism was the last economic thought tech simply because it was the interwar economic thought tech and the game only extended to the interwar period. Also, it gave the same bonus that the other economic thought (such as Neoclassical Theory) gave, +2%.

if the state didn't fund education, there would simply be no education, despite near-universal private education in the US and UK in this time period, etc.

Just a function of most things being player-controlled.

The big problem Vicky had was lack of clear demarcation of what the player controlled and what "happened anyway". Was the player the government? A vague national Zeitgeist? Some sort of God? It was never clear. For example, IRL, more free economies had better economic growth. In Vicky, there isn't a GDP number that grows by a % each year, rather the player originally had total control over the economic system, which was simplistic enough to be centrally managed well. Later the Ricky capitalist system fixed this somewhat, though the choices of the capitalists actually tended to be worse than a "centrally planned" player-controlled economy and the only advantage was ability to spam factories cheaply: IRL, this was the other way around.

That more free economies had better economic growth is highly debatable. Germany had better economic growth for the latter part of the period than Great Britain, for example.

 

[Balesir]

This is very debatable, most governments in Europe for most of the period ran very protectionist states. Towards the later half of the 19th century it was quite obvious for everyone that the more protectionist governments did way better as well (Germany and the US, both were running ahead of the UK in virtually every way you can think off). Even a country like Russia started to industrialise first with heavy tariffs. What you could argue is that the consumers in the UK gained enormously from free trade liberalism and that is partly true, that is however exactly the kind of "success" that not in any way is represented in Victoria.

It sounds like this needs to run (in game) a bit like the Prisoner Dilemma. The way that works is that the two parties involved (two prisoners, in the original) have to choose, in secret, to either "play fair" or to "cheat/betray their compatriot". If both play fair, each gets an advantage (of, let's say, 2 points). If one cheats and the other plays fair, however, the one that cheats gets 3 points - but the one who played fair gets nothing. If both cheat, neither one gets anything at all. Long term, the best outcome for both is simply to play fair all down the line. But the temptation for the "fast buck" is always there, and that in itself makes playing fair a risky proposition...

It is true that Victoria was the opposite of a laissez faire economy however (like well all computer games more or less, but Victoria was if anything worse than average). It was more or less like doing 5-years plans in a planned economy. Any steps away from that is very welcome. And something a little closer to a real world market is a nice step.

Maybe the 'state' (read: player) needs to be given some natural handicap in running the economy directly. The most straightforward (and arguably quite realistic) might be to simply add a lead-time to all player builds in that area (factories, railways, etc.). I do think that Capitalists will have an advantage available to them due to the Artisans in V2; they will 'know' what goods are in demand when they are considering building a factory initially - and the lack of any 'downstream' factories will not make glass factories useless, as they could easily be in Vicky/Ricky.

 

[pizza de oveja]

Ahahahaha...
I love this guys that refuse to accept that socialism has never worked...we can also talk about the food bias...Why all people have to be happy when they eat?...or the religious bias...why people have to get angry when I tell them what religion they should have (or more likely what religion they shouldn’t have).

What you call the liberal bias is that the XIX has been the only time in history that a demi-liberalism(no true liberalism has ever been put into practice due to government intervention) was tried and it worked perfectly, producing a golden age in which most of the great advances were made (like global trade) until it ended when governments decided to declare an stupid unecesary war and intrude in the economy and liberties of their subjects...destroing that forever and forcing us into a century of increasing government intervention on the economy, wars and socialism...

By late XX century we have in most occidental countries public sectors that span close to 50% of the countries economy! that is what the national socialist regime had in Germany in WWII! And they say the global crisis was caused by the excesses of the free market! where is that market!?!?! have u seen it?!?!?:rofl:

If there is any bias in the game it is precisely the opposite...socialism works a lot better(it actually works! that is way a lot better!) in the game than it has done in practice and that is a big bias, considering that by mid XIX the theory had already been proven wrong by a lot of economist and sociologists! and I wont start about what did came of it when it was put into practice!

The biggest bias of all that there are in the game is perhaps that social reforms costs the government money! Bismark invented it to add a new tax upon the pops, one that gave the government a ton of money and that idiotic people thought it was a social advance!

Given a life expectancy of 67 in Prussia they confiscated their subjects earnings to give them a pension when they reached 65! It was a maddox classic!:rofl:

I could continue pointing out other government intervention fan biases the game has like rissing taxes that produce more earnings (first day at economy at the university even keynessian teachers will tell you it doesnt work that way but please fell free to ignore that as do all the socialists, expecialy in my country) but it would be really just adding more details.

Empire total war, in which the economy is kept really simple, being it there only so the player can raise funds to produce armies has a more realistic tax system than victoria! You raise taxes, the wealth creation is slashed and you end up getting less money in the long run, just like it happens in real world.

There is a liberal bias in the game!:rofl: PRICELESS!:rofl:

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Hmm . . .
This is kind of a strange discussion, because the line keeps crossing over from the way that Vicky played versus what "really" happened in the 19th c. It seems to me that Dark Knight and King had it exactly right early on in this thread. The game pretty evidently did point the player toward a certain path to modernization via a generally "liberal" economy. That eventually forced the player toward implementing socialist-type social reforms, because they were effectively the only ways to keep the masses from revolting all over the place once their consciousness was high enough to make them aware of all the goodies they could have.

I see no problem with this design choice: This is the compromise that Bismarck found in Prussia, and his ability to implement it provided a model that other countries later followed. The trick in Vicky II will be to see if other possible paths can be found to keep the masses more or less "happy", such as the one that was followed in the US, for example, which, umm, only recently adopted one of the major pillars of the Prussian welfare state!

 

[Earl Uhtred]

The trick in Vicky II will be to see if other possible paths can be found to keep the masses more or less "happy"...

Yes, that's the million dollar question. It will be a tough balance to strike, to be sure.

 

[King]

Yes, that's the million dollar question. It will be a tough balance to strike, to be sure.

What I aim for is to try and make the alternatives more appealing than they already are. I may not make them as appealing, but it should allow more flexibility in play styles.

 

[Slyguy3129]

The game is just simulating the historical processes operating at the time, and "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

And God help us all if we can't stem the tide.

Opps politics sorry.

 

[unmerged(63310)]

One of the reasons player switching to a controlled economy was so preferable in V1 is that not only did it allow strategic planning of industry but it eliminated all the capitalists AI waste at similar costs.

In reality often state planning can achieve great results in particular industries, better than pure capitalism could. Where it fails is the overall economy becomes less dynamic and it only takes a few bad decisions by the central planning committee to cause disaster.

To model in the game the closer to pure capitalism a system is the lower the costs of new construction should be. Capitalists fail all the time individually but as the system is dynamic there is always another capitalists in the wings waiting to step in and pick up the pieces. This lowers overall costs hugely compared to a government program which has specific aims that are not flexible and if it fails the government solution is usually just to put more money into the plan and it is a long time before failure is noticed then even longer until it is admitted.

In game terms that should mean the amount of new factories/investments per savings amount able to be begun by capitalists is much higher than if the player is using central planning to make their own outcomes. So if you want to make central planning part of your government system you had better really think it out and plan far ahead... making factories only in the states with the highest population available to work or that you can encourage migration too etc because one mistake leads to large costs and even longer opportunity cost losses as starting over is expensive.

If a factory costs 5,000 base, pure capitalism should cost 2,500 while state interventionism cost slightly more at 3,500 while planned economy has the full base cost of 5,000. If there is going to be a switching cost of turning a steel factory into a car factory for example perhaps capitalists also get a bonus there.

Optimally it could be there are 3 types of goods... neutral + consumer and industrial where central planning gets time to build modifier bonus on industrial goods factories and large malus on consumer goods. What government is good at figuring out what kind of clothes people want to wear for example, but a government can easily force build a steel factory that will have some customers. Neutral goods factories is same for all systems. Cars, airplanes, electronics, maybe foods? Affect of each system on RGO is merely cost of improving, same as infrastructure as well.

Pure capitalism will make more mistakes sure but at lower costs the capitalists can afford those mistakes and also much more dynamic system with some mistakes maybe turning a profit eventually. The central planning won't afford as many mistakes or recover from them as well because in order to afford the control they must tax higher and so it is even more important for them to provide jobs etc to keep the population militancy from rising.

If the consumer vs industrial goods were implemented then you could easily see a planned economy dominating a few industrial goods productions but in the later eras it is the luxury goods which have the highest profits so the capitalists systems would probably be out performing the longer the game runs. It might be optimal to make a developing nation planned economy or at least state interventionist until an industrial base is built, then try and switch to capitalism. Of course with large enough population it would be feasible to keep central planning until game end especially if politically successful and manage to keep CON of population relatively low so they don't revolt over high taxes.

 

[Surgünoglu]

Thank you, Ichon, for your reason. I like the liberal bias, frankly; it fits the nature of industrial era technical advancement. And the agitation for social reform is also timely and appropriate. Unlike some clowns' "golden age," the 19th century was also one of poverty, cholera, and dislanded peasants rushing to certain exploitation in the cities. There is a lot that was good about the period, but there were some costs, costs which conservatism, liberalism, socialism, and fascism have all struggled to address, none of them completely.

And just like today, we have the notion of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps, and that's part of the thorny issue of industrialization. Laissez-faire doesn't always work for those who have no standing industry. Industrialization and early economic development took place alongside political reaction, conservatism, and in some places though not necessarily in the time period, under communist administration. For profit to really take off, I agree that a market structure needs to be in place. I just hope Victoria doesn't force us through an ideological program. In Victoria, Japan modernized (I know it's my pet issue, but it's a bellwether for me) whether it was conservative, reactionary, or liberal, but that's because it had its events. Now that V2 is a sandbox, I wonder how it'll allow for many roads to industrialization (even if, in the long run, liberalism's perks may prove too appealing to pass up). I don't want us all to have to be Little Englands (a few of us ought to have the chance to be Little Prussias, for example).

 

[Olaus Petrus]

One of the reasons player switching to a controlled economy was so preferable in V1 is that not only did it allow strategic planning of industry but it eliminated all the capitalists AI waste at similar costs.

True, reason why I switched to central planning was because I constantly kept wondering why my ministers couldn't just say to the capitalists:

"Gentlemen, our army needs machine guns and tanks or the Hun will crush us. We offer lucrative long term contracts for the companies which can produce such weapons to our Army."

And if none of the locals know how to run such factories, then it should be possible to ask foreign businessmen to become government contractors and open factories into the country.

 

[Lys91]

True, reason why I switched to central planning was because I constantly kept wondering why my ministers couldn't just say to the capitalists:

"Gentlemen, our army needs machine guns and tanks or the Hun will crush us. We offer lucrative long term contracts for the companies which can produce such weapons to our Army."

And if none of the locals know how to run such factories, then it should be possible to ask foreign businessmen to become government contractors and open factories into the country.

Or do it the french way... the government own between 10% and 50% of every big company. Well... that's not work, to bad .

Seriously my company wanted to open a factory in China and reduce employee here, the government just bought 8% of the company (a cookie if you found for which company I work ^^) and well, no factory in China. (Edit : and yeah it was our "liberals" who did that)

I think the game should lead to european continental state-like as the most effective model (think Germany).

HS question : is there a forum where you can discuss with american what's problem do they have with their healt-care system ? (without have to read about the socialism/communism crap ...) it's seem so normal here that I can't figure what is their problem ^^.

 

[JoeGiavani]

Or do it the french way... the government own between 10% and 50% of every big company. Well... that's not work, to bad .

Seriously my company wanted to open a factory in China and reduce employee here, the government just bought 8% of the company (a cookie if you found for which company I work ^^) and well, no factory in China. (Edit : and yeah it was our "liberals" who did that)

I think the game should lead to european continental state-like as the most effective model (think Germany).

HS question : is there a forum where you can discuss with american what's problem do they have with their healt-care system ? (without have to read about the socialism/communism crap ...) it's seem so normal here that I can't figure what is their problem ^^.

Your French conservatives are more left-wing than our labour party.
You should all come here and tell us how to do politics.

 

[unmerged(79089)]

Your French conservatives are more left-wing than our labour party.
You should all come here and tell us how to do politics.

You talk like labour is left wing. Tony Blair and David Cameron are pretty much the same.

 

[JoeGiavani]

You talk like labour is left wing. Tony Blair and David Cameron are pretty much the same.

nevermind.

 

[Garak]

Your French conservatives are more left-wing than our labour party.
You should all come here and tell us how to do politics.

And your Conservative Party is more left-wing than our Democrats. Funny ol' world, isn't it? :rofl:

 

[OHgamer]

Contemporary politics has nothing to do with this forum.

And as the main issues raised by the OP have been addressed during the course of discussion, no sense for this thread to remain open for trolls to grind their axes into.

Thread closed.