NationStates Jolt Archive

Study into resolution categories
the political colour of the UN agenda
By the Knootian Bureau of Statistics

The Knootian Bureau of Statistics has generated a count of UN resolutions to date and the impact-driven category they have been assigned. In total, 71 resolutions have been included in this project. The environmental resolution currently on the floor has not been included in the count.

The result of this count is displayed below:

http://www.fredvogels.org/images/UNresolutionsmain.JPG

Predominance of themes
When one looks at the different UN Categories and how often resolutions in their respective categories have been passed, the most obvious feature is a predominance of three themes: Human Rights, Environmental resolutions and ‘Social Justice’ Regulations. Together these three themes account for 79% of all UN resolutions. With just 6 resolutions in the entire history of the United Nations, the Free Trade category is a poor runner-up numerically.

Human Rights are the main issue for UN delegates, as it accounts for almost half of all resolutions. Issues such as gun control were never accepted. Main issues such as moral decency, political stability and global disarmament can only get the attention of UN delegates in very rare cases. Free trade, International Security and the furtherment of Democracy are only occasionally put up. All these aforementioned themes combined account for just 21% of all UN resolutions.

Left-wing bias?
Using a classification system developed by the Knootian University of Nijmegen, the Central Bureau for statistics had classified the UN resolutions into three categories: left-wing themes, right-wing themes and ‘democracy and human rights`. The resolutions in the pie chart have been arranged from the start to the end on a left-right scale.

The resolutions determined to be right-wing themes are: Moral Decency, Political Stability, International Security and Free Trade. The resolutions determined to have decidedly left-wing themes are: Global Disarmament Environmental Social Justice. The democracy & human rights category contains resolutions regarding the furtherment of Democracy and Human Rights. The University holds that human rights and democracy are themes that are, in principle, supported by both affiliations within the UN body. The results of the count are displayed below:

http://www.fredvogels.org/images/UNleftright.JPG

The largest category of resolutions accepted are not of a left or right-wing signature but are most often in the area of ´human rights´. This category accounts for 46% of all resolutions accepted. Still, the left has more influence: 39% of the resolutions deals with ‘their’ issues while the right gets just 15% (consisting mostly of resolutions promoting trade.) Such a balance would imply a UN based on a centre-left platform passing resolutions that usually require a consensus in a field that can be agreed upon. (In the case of the UN this would be the promoting of individual rights.)

UN Human Rights unbiased?
However there is another factor which needs to be taken into account: the nature of most Human Rights resolutions passed in the UN is not considered to be `moderate´ by many of the more conservative member states. Indeed, many complaints by conservative nations focus on issues such as the legalisation of prostitution, abortion, gay marriage and such. Such issues inspired by libertarian social values often touch national sovereignty. As such, they are very often cited as reasons for opposing the UN from a conservative viewpoint. This changes the picture: if even a majority of the Human Rights resolutions that are passed are considered to have a left-wing bias then indeed it would imply a UN that is completely controlled by the nations of the left.

Anti-business attitude
Using the same data as above, the Central Bureau for Statistics has also compiled an Economic Impact indicator for resolutions. This indicator tells us if a UN resolution is good or bad for the economy of a UN nation.

Free Trade and Global Disarmament resolutions have been determined by the CBS to have a positive effect on the economies of UN nations: the Free Trade resolutions strengthen the UN ecnonomies directly, while Global Disarmament resolutions lower the total tax burden of UN citizens, providing more space for economic growth. On the other hand, the International Security, Environmental and Social Justice resolutions have been determined to have a Negative Impact on UN economies. International Security resolutions increase the tax burden of UN citizens. Environmental and Social Justice do this also, but in addition they have a direct negative impact on the competitiveness of UN economies by creating all sorts of different regulations and economic inefficiencies. Other resolutions have been deemed to have a negligible effect on the economy.

In total, the UN has adopted just eight resolutions that had a positive effect on UN economies. Twenty-nine resolutions had a negative economic impact on UN economies and thirty-four resolutions had a negligible impact. This means that over 52% of all resolutions actually affected UN economies somehow. When the pro-business and anti-business resolutions are pitted against eachother in a bar graph, the difference becomes painfully clear:

http://www.fredvogels.org/images/UNecoimpact.JPG

Negative Economic Impact
Regardless of left-wing or right-wing bias, the total body of United Nations regulations has a strong negative impact on the economies of its member nations. This seriously hampers economic growth in UN nations and it is likely deterring potential member states from joining. This is unfortunate, since it prevents these nations from benefiting from the overall positive effects on human rights and democracy in such nations. It is also very unfortunate that the UN Nations are seriously hampered by this body in competing with nations who have chosen not to become members.

*Disclaimer: Researching resolution counts may have been inspired by Miks idea to generate a summary of pass ratio by category and count. However I had not seen the thread at the time of making this thing. (I saw it just before posting it.) This is not about pass ratio of all proposed resolutions, however, but simply counting those that have passed with a twist of my own in assigning categories.

*edits a bit*

Anyway... I realise that the title of that other thread started simultaniously* ("The U.N. is a vile nest for luxury-crazed authoritarian liberalist ") is more catchy but that is not a reason to ignore this one... I hope... comments? Thoughts?

*By someone else!

I think that I'm glad I'm not in the UN :p

*smiles at his Powerhouse economy*

Seriously, though, it's obvious you put some excellent work into this. Well done.

Thank you. ^_^

*smiles at his frightening economy while in the UN*

I am already preparing my country for acceptance of the next resolution. From my issues paragraph:
Knootoss's children are widely acknowledged as the most foul-mouthed in the region, vile black smog from coal power plants envelops several major urban centers, pristine wilderness has been trashed in the quest for cheaper oil, and the country's famous rainforests are being bulldozed by the mining industry.

Its just a matter of not caring about the environment when answering issues. The UN will balance it out anyway. ;)

You know... since nations in the real UN discuss things with each other, it'd be nice if people could be kept from voting until they had a certain number of posts in the UN forum.

Human Rights are the main issue for UN delegates, as it accounts for almost half of all resolutions. Issues such as gun control never made it to the floor.

While I appreciate the time you've put into this, I'm going to call into question your bias here ... a Gun Control issue has made it to the floor and I'm certain that by the end of 2004 the if my nation doesn't bring its Gun Control proposal to the floor as a resolution (likely to be voted down though), that somebody else will beat my government to its (TOP SECRET) plan. ;)

The problem with much of your analysis is two-fold. First you assume a left-right political model that is based on your beliefs. I assure you that Green States are "left" on some issues (notably environmental issues), but can actually become extremely isolationist (to a conservative extreme) on many other issues.

Second many resolutions aren't best described by their short category. Sub-categories are important too. A series of mild resolutions are, in my government's opinion, preferred, than a single strong resolution. Admittedly this is a classic "conservative" opinion, but I honestly doubt that a nation that typically dismisses anything it disagrees with as "too liberal" will understand how some other nation (such as mine) can freely and accurately have a different definition of "conservative". I'd love to see your analysis not only extended to sub-categories, but if you'd remove your political opinions and just let the numbers speak for themselves, I'd love for your charts to be added to the UNAA.

(You'll note that in the UNAA I'm not applying "liberal" or "conservative" nor even attempting to make conclusions. I just present summary stastics and archive the text. I was hoping that your government might do the same.)

I think that I'm glad I'm not in the UN :p

*smiles at his Powerhouse economy*

Seriously, though, it's obvious you put some excellent work into this. Well done.

Bah, that is a complete myth.

My government current is classified as:

UN Category: Capitalizt
Civil Rights:Excellent
Economy:Thriving
Political Freedoms:Excellent

I've been in the UN since late Jan. 2004 and survived with no problems.

The thing about the daily issues ... you get what you get. You can dismiss them or slowly be changed by them, but only slowly.

But the UN is flexible. If you really cared about your game stats, categories like Free Trade are under used. Not because nations fear them. But because many UN detractors are frankly lazy. It takes a bit more work than a fire and forget post to put together a UN proposal.

I've said it before, but if I wanted to prove my value to the international community, I'd start a series of model Free Trade proposals and target individual commodities and just have a trade block use the UN as a trading organization. Oil? Should it be sold on a free market or not? What about other forms of energy? Should nations help each other out? The North Pacific nations do. What about removing some of the various trade barriers nations put up?

Be creative, search the internet, find a few topic ideas and make those nice short and sweet proposals.

Well... I do not recall a gun control issue making it to the floor in the time that I was here. However, I will take your word for it and change it into "was approved". :)

Personally, I am not a fan of the left-right political model per se. (IRL) I am a member of a party founded on the belief that left-right does not exist / is no longer relevant. My nation, as well as myself in person, would be a strong proponent of free trade but would never vote for a moral decency resolution under any circumstance. I understand your point perfectly and I have even defended the “there is no such thing as left-wing” argument IRL. This was, however, not really appreciated by the larger public.

Anyway, I am willing to defend why I *did* include it. A lot of the talk here in these halls is about left-right issues. ("The UN is liberal!" "Commies control the UN." “Go away you st00pid conservative” “I am beginning a mock UN for conservatives!” I leave now because the UN is liberal! Etcetera.) It is simply a fact of life that by far the most nations here work with a pretty basic left-right model as their political compass. If you work within this model, the "themes" categories I used are fairly conventional. At least, that is what my PoliSci 101 teacher would want me to believe. If you have an argument about me putting a particular theme in a particular category while you believe it should not be in that category within this model, I would love to hear it. Using the model does not mean endorsing it as completely coherent, it just gives some numbers to an issue that (I feel) many NSers think is important.

Your sub-categories argument is interesting and, in fact, I did consider it when I started this thing. However, as you can see, the first pie chart I made already has too many options. Graphically adding nuances such as sub-categories or a factor for the time-of-approval (I also considered that) into it would make it too fuzzy. Thus, I excluded it.

For the record, I do not dismiss things as "too liberal". The DDR is a very (market)liberal nation and I am too IRL. The DDR votes are based primarily on its economic interests, and also on how intelligently the resolution was written.

You can add to your website whatever you want (provided you mention me). I personally think the political analysis actually contributes something. If you have ideas on how to work subcategories into a nice and simple presentation of facts without making it a fuzz or making huge assumptions about the absolute difference of two resolutions (2x mild = 1x strong even when dealing with different subjects? 1 mild resolution – 1 strong opposite resolution = -0,5 opposite effect?) I would love to work with you to expand this thing.

I've been in the UN since late Jan. 2004 and survived with no problems.

Fact remains: UN proposals generally beat the economy down. Rankings, especially, rather than categories. The issue is not about "survival" by answering issues smartly. Undeniably, the body of UN resolutions as a whole has a negative, rather then a positive impact on the economies of its members.

[ooc: I can't resist posting this link (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=293552) at this time. ]

Oh, yes, that. :blush: Almost forgot about that incident.

Also caused a big "global recession" RP if I recall?

Your sub-categories argument is interesting and, in fact, I did consider it when I started this thing. However, as you can see, the first pie chart I made already has too many options. Graphically adding nuances such as sub-categories or a factor for the time-of-approval (I also considered that) into it would make it too fuzzy. Thus, I excluded it.

For the record, I do not dismiss things as "too liberal". The DDR is a very (market)liberal nation and I am too IRL. The DDR votes are based primarily on its economic interests, and also on how intelligently the resolution was written.

You can add to your website whatever you want (provided you mention me). I personally think the political analysis actually contributes something. If you have ideas on how to work subcategories into a nice and simple presentation of facts without making it a fuzz or making huge assumptions about the absolute difference of two resolutions (2x mild = 1x strong even when dealing with different subjects? 1 mild resolution – 1 strong opposite resolution = -0,5 opposite effect?) I would love to work with you to expand this thing.

I think the political editorial should be separated, but I'm not going to dismiss the idea they don't have a place in the same forum. But they certainly shouldn't be so intertwinded as you've done so here.

Trust me on the subject of government reports. ;)

My approach would be simple. Present the data and have another post (section) to discuss it.

I don't think even two "strong" resolutions are the same. There are multiple factors. Game stats are the same, to be sure, but how decisions on what to support and not support are largely based on the descriptions ... why can I say this? Look at how variable votes are for various categories.

I won't have time this week (unfortunately due to family considerations), but I was actually planning on looking at category and sub-category voting histograms.

The wonderful thing about NationStates is the sample size in a vote is large enough that we can begin to call voting outcomes on proposals themselves, and imagine what sort of game that would be for those in the know. ;)

The reason I'm focused on the sub categories is two-fold. First, I'm hoping to indirectly expose players to the idea that life is not binary. That there are for most resolutions, three levels of impacts. The UNAA is already doing that on the summaries pages of the PDFs.

If newbies see that they can actually have a mild resolution pass, a few of them will only bonk us a little bit each time ... which is a good thing, considering that probably a quarter of the UN resolution writers aren't in the game any more and I feel issue / resolution writers should stick around ... afterall, they are a lasting part of the game.

My second hope is that we can see if there is a real logical behavior at work between strengths and voting. I'm not convinced there isn't, case in point: Environmental-All Businesses. These resolutions tend to annoy moderates when you get a string of them. This isn't me saying that players should not be worried about these things, but I'm thinking there may actually be some wisdom in writing an Environmental - Woodchipping, even if 49% of your resolution is realistically impacting other industries. (I'd argue that if you clearly hit 50%, that you then risk moderator intervention.)

[ooc: I can't resist posting this link (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=293552) at this time. ]

OOC: Thank you! :)

That is why arguing against UN resolution game stats is stupid. We don't really all have an appreciation for what these things do ... just like many of the daily issues are secret as well (well, OK, players know and the mods do too, but the mods aren't going to just put the coding out there for us all to see).

I've always assumed that the industry resolutions actually impact our industries directly and bypass our economies and tax rates, but wouldn't it actually be interesting if each resolution had an impact that was modified by the game mods? I'm sure this isn't the case, but that would be something.

Oh, yes, that. :blush: Almost forgot about that incident.

Also caused a big "global recession" RP if I recall?

OK, so really ... what UN categories *actually* change the game stat "Economy"?

I can get huge changes in my daily issues, but the UN resolutions really aren't moving anything but my tax rate (frequently skywards).

OK, so really ... what UN categories *actually* change the game stat "Economy"?

You would think that based on the category description, free trade resolutions should improve the economy. However, I find when they pass that they increase only my economic freedoms (as evidenced by my switches to anarchy from civil rights lovefest) whilst leaving my economic strength unchanged as "imploded".

Very interesting indeed. The UN is controlled by the left, and that's the way I like it.

You would think that based on the category description, free trade resolutions should improve the economy. However, I find when they pass that they increase only my economic freedoms (as evidenced by my switches to anarchy from civil rights lovefest) whilst leaving my economic strength unchanged as "imploded".

Hmmm, this actually makes since, though it could be both. Civil Rights Lovefest should be at the top of the economic freedom bracket already. The NS Political Map site seems down right now. :(

Which brings me to another item. Since many nations come and go, I think some of the more useful tools (like the Political Map) need to be archived and stored on additional sites. Credit should be given to the original site, but duplication is a good thing IMHO.

Remember, the official site even lost a UN resolution from Feb! It really is important we start working now to recovering the useful information.

Yeah I found that it wasn't working too. But actually I definitely remember that civil rights lovefest = high social/medium economic/high political freedoms. Anarchy is high in all 3.

OK, so really ... what UN categories *actually* change the game stat "Economy"?

I can get huge changes in my daily issues, but the UN resolutions really aren't moving anything but my tax rate (frequently skywards).

Thank you ever so much for proving the UN already does tax it's members.

Thank you ever so much for proving the UN already does tax it's members.

Actually the tax rate changes can be seen as being implemented to deal with those resolutions that are unfunded mandates.

Which brings me to another item. Since many nations come and go, I think some of the more useful tools (like the Political Map) need to be archived and stored on additional sites. Credit should be given to the original site, but duplication is a good thing IMHO.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/nsmap.jpg

I think the political editorial should be separated, but I'm not going to dismiss the idea they don't have a place in the same forum. But they certainly shouldn't be so intertwinded as you've done so here.

Trust me on the subject of government reports. ;)

My approach would be simple. Present the data and have another post (section) to discuss it.

I don't think even two "strong" resolutions are the same. There are multiple factors. Game stats are the same, to be sure, but how decisions on what to support and not support are largely based on the descriptions ... why can I say this? Look at how variable votes are for various categories.

I won't have time this week (unfortunately due to family considerations), but I was actually planning on looking at category and sub-category voting histograms.

The wonderful thing about NationStates is the sample size in a vote is large enough that we can begin to call voting outcomes on proposals themselves, and imagine what sort of game that would be for those in the know. ;)

The reason I'm focused on the sub categories is two-fold. First, I'm hoping to indirectly expose players to the idea that life is not binary. That there are for most resolutions, three levels of impacts. The UNAA is already doing that on the summaries pages of the PDFs.

If newbies see that they can actually have a mild resolution pass, a few of them will only bonk us a little bit each time ... which is a good thing, considering that probably a quarter of the UN resolution writers aren't in the game any more and I feel issue / resolution writers should stick around ... afterall, they are a lasting part of the game.

My second hope is that we can see if there is a real logical behavior at work between strengths and voting. I'm not convinced there isn't, case in point: Environmental-All Businesses. These resolutions tend to annoy moderates when you get a string of them. This isn't me saying that players should not be worried about these things, but I'm thinking there may actually be some wisdom in writing an Environmental - Woodchipping, even if 49% of your resolution is realistically impacting other industries. (I'd argue that if you clearly hit 50%, that you then risk moderator intervention.)

Well, I would say that the first item on your research agenda would be to ask yourself this:
Does the strength of the resolution actually have any impact on the voting outcome in any significant fashion?
I presume your hypothesis would be that strong resolutions are less likely to be accepted?

Personally, I would feel that there is actually no influence at all since the direction of policy is perhaps more important. Also, having debated many UN resolutions, the strength of the UN resolution barely ever came up. Usually the discussions were about content and the category (“Bah another environmental resolution”, “my naton thinks civil rights are very important!”, etc) Still, I am curious if voting histograms will prove me wrong. It would certainly increase my level of respect for the voting cattle here (it means they actually look beyond Pavlovian keywords such as “sustainable” and “rights” as I warily suspect them to do.)

OOC: Thank you! :)

That is why arguing against UN resolution game stats is stupid. We don't really all have an appreciation for what these things do ... just like many of the daily issues are secret as well (well, OK, players know and the mods do too, but the mods aren't going to just put the coding out there for us all to see).

I've always assumed that the industry resolutions actually impact our industries directly and bypass our economies and tax rates, but wouldn't it actually be interesting if each resolution had an impact that was modified by the game mods? I'm sure this isn't the case, but that would be something.
OK, so really ... what UN categories *actually* change the game stat "Economy"?

I can get huge changes in my daily issues, but the UN resolutions really aren't moving anything but my tax rate (frequently skywards).

I think there is pretty obvious proof that resolutions alter your game stats. For issues, it is sometimes complicated with all these new issues but with the old ones you could pretty much deduce what the effects were. Anyway, this is about UN resolutions.

As this linky showed, that commie Social Justice Resolution knocked my economy down two points. The tax rate is affected too by these issues I mentioned (It goes up.) If a resolution is accepted the effects are quite tangible.

In addition to this effect which I consider to be an established fact, I submit that “Economy” is broader then just the rather generalistic thingy up there that consistently says “frightening” with me and “Imploded” with Myopia. If an environmental resolution knocks down my Automobile Manufacturing this affects my industry and thus my economy. It is bad for the economy even if the rating stays the same. Just look at how UN nations are doing compared to non-UN nations in woodchipping and the like. You’ll find that they are doing worse then non-UN nations generally.

Roleplayed effects, of course, are totally beside this point. The UN Colonising the moon (Or claiming to do so) has effects on the moon nations already living there, of course. :) As such, I figured the UN resolution regarding labour unions would have a disastrous effects in a nation with the Knootian type of corporate capitalism and I RPed accordingly. Completely banning whale hunting has pretty obvious effects for those involved in the industry.

You would think that based on the category description, free trade resolutions should improve the economy. However, I find when they pass that they increase only my economic freedoms (as evidenced by my switches to anarchy from civil rights lovefest) whilst leaving my economic strength unchanged as "imploded".

No offence, but issues and resolutions *do* work together in this regard. From what I have seen, your “OMG TREES AND SOCIAL IS GOOD!!!” economic policies are sortof… “anti-economy” wherever you can, consistently driving it into the ground. The whole “imploded” status confirms that. (I would give food aid if my compassion rating was higher since you´ll need it) One single UN resolution is not going to change the “imploded” status.

To provide a counterexample: the last 4-5 social justice/environmental resolutions did not bring by frightening economy down. It works the other way around too: if you are very stable at frightening the rating does not change with one tiny blow, and if you are at “imploded - - -“ one resolution or issue is not going to raise it one bit.

Very interesting indeed. The UN is controlled by the left, and that's the way I like it.
But do you also like to have a lower standard of living for your people? Do you also like poverty? I think the issue of a good economy is beyond left and right. I think it is preposterous to think that leftists do not care at all about the economy and are content to live in poverty. Or am I wrong?

Hmmm, this actually makes since, though it could be both. Civil Rights Lovefest should be at the top of the economic freedom bracket already. The NS Political Map site seems down right now. :(
[…]
Yeah I found that it wasn't working too. But actually I definitely remember that civil rights lovefest = high social/medium economic/high political freedoms. Anarchy is high in all 3.

_Myopia_ is right regarding the place of the Civil Rights Lovefest. Having been Anarchy/capitalizt/Civil Rights Lovefest for a long time I can now. (And it is on the political map, of course.)

I'd just like to say as no one else seems to have,

" Mmmm, pie ! "

I'll actually post something more relevant here one I get home.

college, grumble, grumble, grumble ... no mIRC ... no MSN just how are we expected to arse off proper like ...

Actually the tax rate changes can be seen as being implemented to deal with those resolutions that are unfunded mandates.

I'm going to be picky just because.

UN passes a resolution.
Income tax rates increase as nations need additional funds to enforce mandates.

Isn't this already an indirect tax on the citizenry via the actions of the UN?

Isn't this already an indirect tax on the citizenry via the actions of the UN?
Only if you count changes in Political Freedoms and Civil Rights as 'taxes' too.

It's an effect. The UN doesn't get the money.

Bah, I return from college, remember this thread, only to have to leave again, and with no time to post cause I'm back in my U.N. account. Grrr.

Da, but I shall return. Until then, this is another place holder for this account, and keep the vodka chilled, my pinko leftist comrades ... ;)

In addition to this effect which I consider to be an established fact, I submit that “Economy” is broader then just the rather generalistic thingy up there that consistently says “frightening” with me and “Imploded” with Myopia. If an environmental resolution knocks down my Automobile Manufacturing this affects my industry and thus my economy. It is bad for the economy even if the rating stays the same. Just look at how UN nations are doing compared to non-UN nations in woodchipping and the like. You’ll find that they are doing worse then non-UN nations generally.


I'm guessing that Environmental resolutions target specific or all industries, but not the economy game state. I suspect that the game is primative enough that these are independent.

So a hit to your Automobile Manufacturing industry via a UN resolution isn't going to increase your tax rate or lower your economy. A total guess.

Now we don't really know (i.e. have published hints) what all of the impacts to the various daily issues are. I could easily see the mods making environmental type daily issues taking on both a few specific industries, our tax rates, and our entire economy.

But I've certainly managed to tweak my economy without taking hits or improvements to my tax rate.


To provide a counterexample: the last 4-5 social justice/environmental resolutions did not bring by frightening economy down. It works the other way around too: if you are very stable at frightening the rating does not change with one tiny blow, and if you are at “imploded - - -“ one resolution or issue is not going to raise it one bit.


You always go off on leftists and I really do wonder what kind of hole you live in? Let's just say that when I'm not worrying about being a UN ambassador that I am actively involved in government related environmental issues, and most of your rants come off as ignorant about how quality of life *and* economic growth these days are in fact tied into environmental issues.

But I disgress here ...

The way our UN categories are calculated is based on a series of points, no? You can have a label like frightening, but it really is determined on a *ratio*. A single issue or resolution doesn't change the ratio directly but changes your points. Older nations will have accumulated lots of points, thus it is harder to change those ratios and thus harder to change game stat descriptions.

I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with "imploded" vs. "frightening", but has everything to do with how we've changed "points".

That is why I've suggested new nations wait a bit before joining the UN. They'll have control over their daily issues and can "buffer" those points and ratios before finding themselves at the whim of the world.

No offence, but issues and resolutions *do* work together in this regard. From what I have seen, your “OMG TREES AND SOCIAL IS GOOD!!!” economic policies are sortof… “anti-economy” wherever you can, consistently driving it into the ground. The whole “imploded” status confirms that. (I would give food aid if my compassion rating was higher since you´ll need it) One single UN resolution is not going to change the “imploded” status.

To provide a counterexample: the last 4-5 social justice/environmental resolutions did not bring by frightening economy down. It works the other way around too: if you are very stable at frightening the rating does not change with one tiny blow, and if you are at “imploded - - -“ one resolution or issue is not going to raise it one bit.

I see your point, but the thing is (and this is probably drifting more into a post suitable for the gameplay forum), looking at my civil rights lovefest category and my tendency to slip into anarchy demonstrates that my nation's economic freedoms are actually medium to high. Of course, I know this isn't the only factor affecting my economic strength, but I would have thought that it would at least get me higher than "imploded", especially after the added boost of a free trade resolution or two.

Incidentally, one of my puppets is I think actually more consistently socialist and pro-environment on issues, has demonstrably lower economic freedoms (it's a "left-wing utopia"), and higher, more progressive tax rates, yet maintains a "fair" economy.

As Mikitivity says, environmental issues are fairly closely tied to current living standards, and even more so to future living standards.

I'm going to be picky just because.

UN passes a resolution.
Income tax rates increase as nations need additional funds to enforce mandates.

Isn't this already an indirect tax on the citizenry via the actions of the UN?

It isn't a tax levied by the UN. The game assumes that you respond to the resolution by maintaining other spending and taxes, and adds tax to fund the additional expenditure on the unfunded mandate. However, it would be perfectly possible for a government to accomodate spending forced by the UN by cutting other spending and keeping taxes the same.

Mik: I tend to see a hit to my Automobile Manufacturing industry as intrinsically bad. Your economic ratings get worse without getting anything else in return in terms of ratings. The whole "frightening" bit is just part of what is a total economic experience. I have a broader conception of economy then just that ONE rating. Even though that, too, is affected by UN resolutions. (Social justice most certainly, environmental highly likely.) Higher tax rates are also bad within a Knootian paradigm, and thirdgeek seems to agree with us ;)

*shrug* You really like that authority argument don’t you? I see a difference between measures that improve the quality of life and measures that do not improve the quality of life. Completely banning whaling for all eternity instead of a smart system of quotas does not really make Knootians happy. No offence but I cannot see a high and modern quality of life being achieved by a nation with an imploded economy and a GDP which, in Knootian terms, is worth about at a wallet of loose change, a rusty second hand car and a few crates of Pink Bunny Cola. No matter how pristine the environment may be.

Re: Stuff about ratios: yes. That is what I was saying, no?

I see your point, but the thing is (and this is probably drifting more into a post suitable for the gameplay forum), looking at my civil rights lovefest category and my tendency to slip into anarchy demonstrates that my nation's economic freedoms are actually medium to high. Of course, I know this isn't the only factor affecting my economic strength, but I would have thought that it would at least get me higher than "imploded", especially after the added boost of a free trade resolution or two.
You can still make anti-business decisions while promoting economic freedom. I´d say there is a *loose* correlation between the two in *most* issues but it is by no means a given. I figure you simply hurt the economy a lot. I cannot really say that a “fair” economy is a real accomplishment. On my book its a third world country that is not currently in deep shit, at best, if you think about how many ratings are above that. :/

As Mikitivity says, environmental issues are fairly closely tied to current living standards, and even more so to future living standards.
Correct. However, truly sustainable policies in a growing world combine sustained economic growth with sustained production and sustainable use of resources. So far the UN has hardly considered economic issues seriously while these environmental resolutions really seem to have to do more with populist bullshit about cute @@animal@@ and protecting treas from mean men who cut them. If you want to change your nation into a nationwide communal subsistence farm, then be my guest but please do not force everyone else into that paradigm.

Pie is good.