NationStates Jolt Archive

Rudolfensia calls for a reform of how nation's economies are determined.
The current system ignores taxes but uses civil rights.
I believe CR should be ignored as they have no bearing on a nations economy. And taxes should be factored in. As should the national interest rate.
Further, nations with "hardworking" populations and a probusiness govt should be given additional points. While being antibusiness or not funding commerce should each cause a reduction of one point.
The size of the economy should be factored in as should the size of the nation's free market. The two should not be assumed to be the same. Because in RL they are very different.

I agree with what he just said.

With the new system would storefronts be taken into account?

With the new system would storefronts be taken into account?What do you mean?
The more small businesses, malls, bizarres and other similar marketplaces a nation has, the better its economy should be.

With the new system would storefronts be taken into account?
The more small businesses your nation allows, the better your national economy overall should be and the bigger your free market sector would be.
Communist and socialist nations, typically ban small businesses as do nations run by large corporations so they would suffer under this system.
OOC: The bigger the corporation running things, the more inefficient the economic system.

With the new system would storefronts be taken into account?
The more small businesses your nation allows, the better your national economy overall should be and the bigger your free market sector would be.
Communist and socialist nations, typically ban small businesses as do nations run by large corporations so they would suffer under this system.
OOC: The bigger the corporation running things, the more inefficient the economic system.

Considering that in real life, the most economically powerful nations are home to the most powerful corporations, I would debate that last sentence of yours.

I think it would be more appropriate to say "nations that allow monopolies tend to be less efficient economically."

EDIT: And that is only true of sales in a nation...that is, not including the products and services of forign corporations.

With the new system would storefronts be taken into account?
The more small businesses your nation allows, the better your national economy overall should be and the bigger your free market sector would be.
Communist and socialist nations, typically ban small businesses as do nations run by large corporations so they would suffer under this system.
OOC: The bigger the corporation running things, the more inefficient the economic system.

Considering that in real life, the most economically powerful nations are home to the most powerful corporations, I would debate that last sentence of yours.

I think it would be more appropriate to say "nations that allow monopolies tend to be less efficient economically."

You just said the same thing he did. You only worded it differently.
Plus, the largest corps in those nations, are actually global corporations. They don't really count as all they do is drain the local economy of financial resources and in more developed nations, of jobs.

Most corporations operating in any given nation, including America, are foriegn.

With the new system would storefronts be taken into account?
The more small businesses your nation allows, the better your national economy overall should be and the bigger your free market sector would be.
Communist and socialist nations, typically ban small businesses as do nations run by large corporations so they would suffer under this system.
OOC: The bigger the corporation running things, the more inefficient the economic system.

Considering that in real life, the most economically powerful nations are home to the most powerful corporations, I would debate that last sentence of yours.

I think it would be more appropriate to say "nations that allow monopolies tend to be less efficient economically."

EDIT: And that is only true of sales in a nation...that is, not including the products and services of forign corporations.
The most powerful corporations, are global corporations that transcend national boundaries. They get their strength by sapping it from local economies by taking away money, resources and jobs. Hence, such corporations actually do a nation more economic harm than economic good.
Monopolies are nothing but a corporate version of communism. That is what makes them so inefficient. Hence, one reason why in RL, socialist nations like Cuba and China welcome the global corps with open arms.
As for foreign corporations, you have to factor in their effects on your local economy.

ANy one else got ideas?

You just said the same thing he did. You only worded it differently.
Plus, the largest corps in those nations, are actually global corporations. They don't really count as all they do is drain the local economy of financial resources and in more developed nations, of jobs.

Well thats a very historical structuralist view of it.

The most powerful corporations, are global corporations that transcend national boundaries. They get their strength by sapping it from local economies by taking away money, resources and jobs. Hence, such corporations actually do a nation more economic harm than economic good.

Again, a very historical structuralist viewpoint. Realists and Liberals have many debates against that point. It isn't much use debating them here on the II forums.

Which, by the way, this thread should be in the General forums, or maybe the NS or NS2 forums.

Monopolies are nothing but a corporate version of communism. That is what makes them so inefficient. Hence, one reason why in RL, socialist nations like Cuba and China welcome the global corps with open arms.

Your confusing politics with economics. While the two intermingle, they are different. A corporation does not have citizens, soverignty, or the many other things that go along with government. I see what you mean that monopolies are like communist (not socialist) governments in many ways, but they are not the same.

As for foreign corporations, you have to factor in their effects on your local economy.

I think we are getting just a bit too complicated for NS. Remember, the game is simple, and should be kept simple. The real fun is in the role-play.

If you can work out a formula I'd be more than happy to make a php script to calculate it.

You just said the same thing he did. You only worded it differently.
Plus, the largest corps in those nations, are actually global corporations. They don't really count as all they do is drain the local economy of financial resources and in more developed nations, of jobs.

Well thats a very historical structuralist view of it.

The most powerful corporations, are global corporations that transcend national boundaries. They get their strength by sapping it from local economies by taking away money, resources and jobs. Hence, such corporations actually do a nation more economic harm than economic good.

Again, a very historical structuralist viewpoint. Realists and Liberals have many debates against that point. It isn't much use debating them here on the II forums.

Which, by the way, this thread should be in the General forums, or maybe the NS or NS2 forums.

Monopolies are nothing but a corporate version of communism. That is what makes them so inefficient. Hence, one reason why in RL, socialist nations like Cuba and China welcome the global corps with open arms.

Your confusing politics with economics. While the two intermingle, they are different. A corporation does not have citizens, soverignty, or the many other things that go along with government. I see what you mean that monopolies are like communist (not socialist) governments in many ways, but they are not the same.

As for foreign corporations, you have to factor in their effects on your local economy.

I think we are getting just a bit too complicated for NS. Remember, the game is simple, and should be kept simple. The real fun is in the role-play.

Monopolies are like communist states not in terms of citizenship, but in terms that almost everything is owned by a small group of people.
Politically, you are correct, monopolies are not the same as communist governments. But economically, I would argue they are the same.

There is a post in the tech forum with a great idea I am advocating here.
We should ignore civil rights and use the tax rate, the size of the public sector, and the size of the national economy, whether your citizens are hardworking and whether or not your govt is pro or antibusiness (if it is pro you get one point if it is anti you lose one point.)

Think I put this in the wrong forum.

We have a list of the possible national economic sizes, but we need a list of the type of local public sectors from nonexistent to very large or superpower public sectors.
Any one understand what I am talking about?

Monopolies are like communist states not in terms of citizenship, but in terms that almost everything is owned by a small group of people.
Politically, you are correct, monopolies are not the same as communist governments. But economically, I would argue they are the same.

Well, I agree with respect to the form that communist governments of today take...that of facism...or of oligarchy. That is, all communist governments I know of are either a dictatorship (one man leading the communist party leading the nation) or an oligarchy (people in the party competing to run the nation, but with no one person too big to assassinate).

Theoretically, a democratic (err, democratic republic) communist nation could form, but this has so far been prevented by the existance of communist political parties.

You could say that the problem is that the communist party of a nation has a "monopoly" (ironic) on communist thought.

Yet in capitalist nations, we see several parties with liberal or realist viewpoints...there is no capitalist party.

There is a post in the tech forum with a great idea I am advocating here.
We should ignore civil rights and use the tax rate, the size of the public sector, and the size of the national economy, whether your citizens are hardworking and whether or not your govt is pro or antibusiness (if it is pro you get one point if it is anti you lose one point.)

I can see how tax rate, "hardworking citizens" and pro/anti-buisness might be used in NationStates...but where is the national economy size? I've never seen that as part of the game. Or maybe your refering to something else and I am not getting it yet. Could you explain further?

Monopolies are like communist states not in terms of citizenship, but in terms that almost everything is owned by a small group of people.
Politically, you are correct, monopolies are not the same as communist governments. But economically, I would argue they are the same.

Well, I agree with respect to the form that communist governments of today take...that of facism...or of oligarchy. That is, all communist governments I know of are either a dictatorship (one man leading the communist party leading the nation) or an oligarchy (people in the party competing to run the nation, but with no one person too big to assassinate).

Theoretically, a democratic (err, democratic republic) communist nation could form, but this has so far been prevented by the existance of communist political parties.

You could say that the problem is that the communist party of a nation has a "monopoly" (ironic) on communist thought.

Yet in capitalist nations, we see several parties with liberal or realist viewpoints...there is no capitalist party.

There is a post in the tech forum with a great idea I am advocating here.
We should ignore civil rights and use the tax rate, the size of the public sector, and the size of the national economy, whether your citizens are hardworking and whether or not your govt is pro or antibusiness (if it is pro you get one point if it is anti you lose one point.)

I can see how tax rate, "hardworking citizens" and pro/anti-buisness might be used in NationStates...but where is the national economy size? I've never seen that as part of the game. Or maybe your refering to something else and I am not getting it yet. Could you explain further?
I probably should correct that or, as you said, elaborate.
National economy should only be brought in to determine your potential economic strength.
India for example has a very very large economy but it is actually very poor at the same time.
While china also has a the same size or bigger economy but would be most likely compared to a middle class family.
While the US in the same area in terms of economic size but is much much wealthier than the other two.
National economic size would be used to determine your economic potential. This requires setting your unemployment rate when you use the new formula. We should bear in mind that the lowest possible unemployment rate is about 5%.
But the size of your public sector would be one of the determining factors.
There is a difference between national economy and public sector.
The bigger your public sector, the stronger your economy would be.
Does that help any?

Raising tariffs would lower your economy.
Abolishing it would raise the economy.
Increase education spending or revamping education should cause the economy to go up.
Not providing enough funds to either education, healthcare, or commerce would cause the economy to go down.
Decreasing military spending causes economies to go up.
While increasing it would cause it economic strength to go down.

The GDP calc is not official.

I do not use it.

It is incredibly pro-evil-corparate-dictatorship biased.

What you suggest would only make it more so.

Civil rights do have bearing, but when it does your budget it ignores taxes.

I have the 4097th largest public sector in the world (pretty impressive for a July nation you must admit), but that is not taken into account.

I intend to create my own system which takes public sector into account, and stoill account for civil rights, and education, and take taxes into budget account. (tell me how taxes affect your economy negatively.

The GDP calc is not official.

I do not use it.

It is incredibly pro-evil-corparate-dictatorship biased.

What you suggest would only make it more so.

Civil rights do have bearing, but when it does your budget it ignores taxes.

I have the 4097th largest public sector in the world (pretty impressive for a July nation you must admit), but that is not taken into account.

I intend to create my own system which takes public sector into account, and stoill account for civil rights, and education, and take taxes into budget account. (tell me how taxes affect your economy negatively.
I have to disagree sharply on the effect of civil rights. Cause in China, there are no civil rights but they are the world's second strongest economic power second only to the USA.

I have to disagree sharply on the effect of civil rights. Cause in China, there are no civil rights but they are the world's second strongest economic power second only to the USA.
They would be Iron Fist Consumerists or Corparate Police Statewith a billion + pop, except that the money genereated in China goes mostly into the cpoffers of US multinationals, whereas Finland, Sweden, and Holland which would be Scandinavian Liberal Paradises or Left-Wing Utopias have an extrodinary GDP per capita

I have to disagree sharply on the effect of civil rights. Cause in China, there are no civil rights but they are the world's second strongest economic power second only to the USA.
They would be Iron Fist Consumerists or Corparate Police Statewith a billion + pop, except that the money genereated in China goes mostly into the cpoffers of US multinationals, whereas Finland, Sweden, and Holland which would be Scandinavian Liberal Paradises or Left-Wing Utopias have an extrodinary GDP per capita

Actually that would be japanese, european, korean, and american multinationals.
Also, most of it goes not overseas but into their military.