NationStates Jolt Archive

"Unless this government does something, Bautista won't have an auto industry for much longer," says auto industry union boss Colin Dredd, in a rare public appearance alongside management. "These foreign companies employ people for a few dollars a day. The only way to level the playing field is to raise tariffs. The government would make more money, too, so it's win-win."
[Accept]


"For once, I agree with my grubby colleague here," says General Chassis CEO Jazz Barry. "Although I have to say, tariffs aren't the only answer. A more effective solution would be to abolish minimum wage laws. Now that would level the playing field. And we'd be able to employ more--argh, let go of my throat!"
[Accept]


"I think we need to face facts," says noted economist and chat-show regular Fleur Hamilton. "We live in a global economy now, and automobile manufacturing just isn't Bautista's strong suit. There's no point taking money from taxpayers in order to line the pockets of a few greedy workers and corrupt managers in a doomed industry. Let the market takes its--argh, let go of my throat!"
[Accept]

I would go for option 2 in this case, but does anyone think option 1 is better, and if so, why (in terms of economics and if applicable civil rights)

Also, can I get some advice about how I go about improving my economy (i.e. supporting tax cuts, reducing tariffs etc.)

I usually choose Option 1. I think it gives your economy a bigger boost, than 2, as lower wages will translate into reduced spending power. Why place pressure on your people when you can shift it overseas? Choosing Option 2 also probably reduces civil rights a bit, plus your nation will go down in UN rankings on indicators such as income equality, happiness, etc. Your people could also become more foul-mouthed. ;)

Not foul mouthed. There is only one issue for that. But to be honest, I think that option three is what raises one's economy, I always go for Option 1.

For general tips, see also http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76180

I'd say the raising of tariffs and subsidies resulting in an improved economy is debatable, especially in a real world sense since they promote inefficency. I've gone with no tariffs since the start of my nation and I've had little trouble keeping my economy goin'.

As to how it affects the game though... well, that's probably an entirely different story. I'd probably have little trouble keeping my economy in check with one bad choice if every one of my other choices results in a strong economy. I honestly can't say.

Come to think of it, allowing corporations to donate money probably involves a trade-off between economical and political freedoms with economy benefitting and political freedom suffering. This one usually stumps me. I'd like to know some solid ramifications of either decision.

Any advice posted here is always based on a limited set of observations, although a lot of it is fairly accurate. The Admin could, if so inclined, post a full list of issues with details of which choices affect which stats to what extent, but that would be a bit of a spoiler, and they are unlikely to want to reveal stuff like that.