Why the player can use capitalists money but he cannot use other POPs money too?

[--Yigito123--]

If the capitalist's wants are actually represented then they need to be making their own decisions. We don't decide that bureaucrats don't need paper or aristocrats don't want luxury furniture, so it makes no sense that we can then decide that capitalists want to build a shipyard that gives 10% return over a machine parts factory that gives 50%.

The funny thing is, you DO decide what bureaucrats do, if you actually make a sensible comparison instead of comparing the bureaucrat's paper needs with what factory the capitalist decides to build. Bureaucrats working produce Bureaucratic Capacity, which is used for laws or bureaucratic upkeep of states. The Bureaucrats don't decide what laws need to be passed or enforced somewhere, and neither do they decide for themselves what states need to be integrated or in what direction the government needs to exert it's influence. That's on your ghostly spirit hands.

 

[durbal]

The funny thing is, you DO decide what bureaucrats do, if you actually make a sensible comparison instead of comparing the bureaucrat's paper needs with what factory the capitalist decides to build. Bureaucrats working produce Bureaucratic Capacity, which is used for laws or bureaucratic upkeep of states. The Bureaucrats don't decide what laws need to be passed or enforced somewhere, and neither do they decide for themselves what states need to be integrated or in what direction the government needs to exert it's influence. That's on your ghostly spirit hands.

None of this has anything to do with what I said. I understand what the function of bureaucrats is in game terms.

 

[--Yigito123--]

None of this has anything to do with what I said. I understand what the function of bureaucrats is in game terms.

Hey, you're the one that made the nonsense comparison, not me. I was just an observer until now, but I can't help but comment on how illogical what you said in that comment was. What does the needed goods of bureaucrats or any other pops have to do with the economic system and autonomous capitalists?

 

[Spartakusbund]

None of my argument is based on that.

Your argument is that it doesn’t feel right that a capitalist doesn’t invest in the 100% most profitable industry.

 

[durbal]

Hey, you're the one that made the nonsense comparison, not me. I was just an observer until now, but I can't help but comment on how illogical what you said in that comment was. What does the needed goods of bureaucrats or any other pops have to do with the economic system and autonomous capitalists?

Here's the post you apparently missed:

When given a choice between more profit and less profit -- a choice eadily quantified in game terms -- capitalists invest in more profitable industries. Even if you want to get hand-wavey and start including unquantifiable and intangible behaviors into this otherwise simple system, that just allows for suspension of disbelief in a role-playing sense without addressing the fact that public needs vs. private wants are a fundamental issue in economics that disappears or is perverted due to the player controlling capitalist wants but not, for example, farmer needs or middle class wants. It's just weird all around.

This is based on the assumption that capitalists want the highest ROI possible, which I think is a safe assumption. Let me know if you think capitalists do not want to make the most money.

 

[wilcoxchar]

This is based on the assumption that capitalists want the highest ROI possible, which I think is a safe assumption. Let me know if you think capitalists do not want to make the most money.

Your assumption is wrong. Homo economicus does not exist, has never existed, and even in a game like Victoria, does not exist.

 

[--Yigito123--]

Here's the post you apparently missed:


This is based on the assumption that capitalists want the highest ROI possible, which I think is a safe assumption. Let me know if you think capitalists do not want to make the most money.

First off, I have never actually talked about your views on the economy up until this comment, I only pointed out how nonsensical the comparison to the bureaucrat's paper needs was.

Secondly, now that you have insisted on drawing me into this conversation, I have two questions for you. Is it actually desirable, possible and realistic for a capitalist AI to exists that always makes the apparent "best choice" in a constantly shifting economy plenty of other AI capitalists will also be acting in? Secondly, why are you so sure that the player would not want the capitalists to make the most money based on what we know about the investment pool mechanic thus far?

 

[durbal]

Your argument is that it doesn’t feel right that a capitalist doesn’t invest in the 100% most profitable industry.

Specifically that it doesn't make sense within the constraints of the game, but whatever. I don't see how that's some kind of player role-playing.

My biggest issue is that, in terms of gameplay, the player is able to directly control capitalists because a core part of the game is apparently plopping down buildings. I'm just pointing out the additional problems created by such a system in the hope that Paradox rethinks how the player should interact with their economy and shore up exactly how much control players should have over pops.

 

[durbal]

Your assumption is wrong. Homo economicus does not exist, has never existed, and even in a game like Victoria, does not exist.

Sigh. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: capitalists want to make the most money possible?

 

[Spartakusbund]

Specifically that it doesn't make sense within the constraints of the game, but whatever. I don't see how that's some kind of player role-playing.

Why doesn’t it make sense within the constraints of the game? The player is incentivized to think like a capitalist and seek returns on investment. Otherwise he will not be able to expand the investment pool and make more factories.

My biggest issue is that, in terms of gameplay, the player is able to directly control capitalists because a core part of the game is apparently plopping down buildings. I'm just pointing out the additional problems created by such a system in the hope that Paradox rethinks how the player should interact with their economy and shore up exactly how much control players should have over pops.

One day you’re gonna learn that just repeating a phrase like “plopping down factories” is not a substitute for an argument.

 

[durbal]

First off, I have never actually talked about your views on the economy up until this comment, I only pointed out how nonsensical the comparison to the bureaucrat's paper needs was.

Secondly, now that you have insisted on drawing me into this conversation, I have two questions for you. Is it actually desirable, possible and realistic for a capitalist AI to exists that always makes the apparent "best choice" in a constantly shifting economy plenty of other AI capitalists will also be acting in? Secondly, why are you so sure that the player would not want the capitalists to make the most money based on what we know about the investment pool mechanic thus far?

It's not nonsense. It's the fight between private wants and public needs. The public might need more paper for the struggling bureaucracy and so the player decides to build a paper mill using capitalist money despite the fact that it yields less profit than another industry.

As for your questions:
1. Yes.
2. See the entire discussion of public needs vs. private wants. There's even a quick summary in the paragraph above.

 

[durbal]

One day you’re gonna learn that just repeating a phrase like “plopping down factories” is not a substitute for an argument.

No, but it's a concise way to say that I don't think clicking around on a map and pressing buttons to make factories appear is good gameplay. I think most people get the gist.

Why doesn’t it make sense within the constraints of the game? The player is incentivized to think like a capitalist and seek returns on investment. Otherwise he will not be able to expand the investment pool and make more factories.

No, he's not. That's the entire point. The player is not incentivized to always maximize profits for capitalists. That is literally the entire point. There are posts from multiple people and whole threads regarding this very fundamental issue that you keep posting on. By directly placing buildings using capitalist money, players can bypass the role of taxation, tariffs, subsidies, etc. and all the interesting gameplay that could result from interacting with such systems (high taxes annoying certain classes causing unrest, tariffs creating diplomatic problems, subsidies draining state funds, etc.). Instead it's just click button -> get factory. That's why I'm so opposed to the investment pool.

 

[Spartakusbund]

No, but it's a concise way to say that I don't think clicking around on a map and pressing buttons to make factories appear is good gameplay. I think most people get the gist.

And you completely dodge the real question of that post. Okay. Have fun being as wrong as you usually are, durbal.

 

[--Yigito123--]

It's not nonsense. It's the fight between private wants and public needs. The public might need more paper for the struggling bureaucracy and so the player decides to build a paper mill using capitalist money despite the fact that it yields less profit than another industry.

As for your questions:
1. Yes.
2. See the entire discussion of public needs vs. private wants. There's even a quick summary in the paragraph above.

1. Great argument. Yes. I see.
2. Are you telling me, throughout the entire history of mankind, people have never invested into businesses that are not mathematically the best thing they could've possibly invested into at that precise moment? If there's a paper shortage in the nation such that the bureaucracy is struggling to supply paper, why is it so inconceivable for a capitalist to capitalize on this and open a paper mill? I don't understand your obsession with the capitalists always building the industry that will yield the most profit possible. This was never true, it goes completely against the nature of humanity and information. Even today, with all the technology that can be used to track and compare this information, "capitalists" regularly lose millions pooling money into dead on arrival concepts. Even from a gameplay perspective, there are so many problems such an implementation could create I can list just off the top of my head.

EDIT: On another note, again, why do you believe that they player would not want the capitalists to make as much profit as possible? The capitalists' pool of money is something the player desires, and thus, something they will seek to increase.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Sigh. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: capitalists want to make the most money possible?

Your statement is irrelevant. Capitalists in terms of capitalist POPs want to fulfill their needs. Capitalists in terms of real life are human beings with many other considerations, preferences, and utilities that go into their decision making besides money.

 

[durbal]

Your statement is irrelevant. Capitalists in terms of capitalist POPs want to fulfill their needs. Capitalists in terms of real life are human beings with many other considerations, preferences, and utilities that go into their decision making besides money.

Great! Then let them make their own decisions.

1. Great argument. Yes. I see.
2. Are you telling me, throughout the entire history of mankind, people have never invested into businesses that are not mathematically the best thing they could've possibly invested into at that precise moment? If there's a paper shortage in the nation such that the bureaucracy is struggling to supply paper, why is it so inconceivable for a capitalist to capitalize on this and open a paper mill? I don't understand your obsession with the capitalists always building the industry that will yield the most profit possible. This was never true, it goes completely against the nature of humanity and information. Even today, with all the technology that can be used to track and compare this information, "capitalists" regularly lose millions pooling money into dead on arrival concepts. Even from a gameplay perspective, there are so many problems such an implementation could create I can list just off the top of my head.

1. You asked the question of whether or not it's possible to design an AI that is capable of making the best investment decisions, to which I replied 'yes'. It's not so much an argument as much as it is just answering your question.

2. This was asked and answered. You have two choices here: either you try to explain post-facto and in some role-playing sense why the player is able to direct capitalist money toward a paper mill that wasn't the most profitable choice under the convenient guise of the capitalists being irrational actors (whose goals just happened to coincide with the player's), or you just let them capitalists decide on their own what to build in which case if they decide to build a paper mill then no post-facto explanation is needed at all since it was actually their decision.

EDIT: On another note, again, why do you believe that they player would not want the capitalists to make as much profit as possible? The capitalists' pool of money is something the player desires, and thus, something they will seek to increase.

Again, because there is a disconnect between public needs and private wants. By allowing the player to control private wants in terms of deciding what capitalist money will go toward, that interesting disconnect that things like taxes, tariffs, subsidies, etc. and other government tools that are used to attempt to bridge that gap become more or less irrelevant, making the gameplay suffer since instead of dealing with those tools the player is instead just clicking on a map and plopping down buildings.

 

[Spartakusbund]

No, he's not. That's the entire point. The player is not incentivized to always maximize profits for capitalists.

Yes, he is. You keep coming back to this hypothetical of a machine parts factory vs. a shipyard and you have not even attempted to explain what might motivate a player might want to build the shipyard that would also not motivate a capitalist to do so.

That is literally the entire point. There are posts from multiple people and whole threads regarding this very fundamental issue that you keep posting on. By directly placing buildings using capitalist money, players can bypass the role of taxation, tariffs, subsidies, etc. and all the interesting gameplay that could result from interacting with such systems (high taxes annoying certain classes causing unrest, tariffs creating diplomatic problems, subsidies draining state funds, etc.). Instead it's just click button -> get factory. That's why I'm so opposed to the investment pool.

Those indirect influence on the economy do not go away because of the investment pool. Let’s say I want to build a paper factory because I know long term my bureaucracy needs to expand. Say I know I want to create a new Institution soon that will take a lot of Admin Capacity. However, a paper factory would not be profitable. I would need to use tariffs, trade deals, etc. in order to drive up the price of paper to make it possible to open the factory and get the expanded paper economy humming along.

Whereas if I’m in an economic system that allows subsidies or direct state investment, I can open a paper factory whenever I want.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Great! Then let them make their own decisions.

Ok. The player does not need to make decisions on what goods capitalist POPs buy in order to fulfill their personal needs. Done.

The player can still make decisions on what factories get built though.

 

[durbal]

Ok. The player does not need to make decisions on what goods capitalist POPs buy in order to fulfill their personal needs. Done.

The player can still make decisions on what factories get built though.

C'mon man. Again, you're either being disingenuous or purposely obtuse. But I know your history of basically shouting down any and all criticisms directed toward anything Paradox does, so I guess it's not worth engaging in any kind of discussion with you. Paradox could say the sky is green and you'd be downvoting anyone saying it's actually blue.

 

[durbal]

Yes, he is. You keep coming back to this hypothetical of a machine parts factory vs. a shipyard and you have not even attempted to explain what might motivate a player might want to build the shipyard that would also not motivate a capitalist to do so.

For the sake of the argument, the player's motivations aren't even required: the simple fact that a player can control capitalist wants but not those of other pops is wonky. But to answer your question, the answer is (again, and hopefully for the final time) that public needs and private wants are not always aligned. The player might want a shipyard to be built to have domestic ship production over relying on imports even though this is the less profitable option.