NationStates Jolt Archive

It's possible to have an imploded economy, and still have "elderly citizens buying mansions" "government paying for all health drugs" etc etc.

Even at 100% income tax, you'd expect a government with an imploded economy to be able to just about raise the funds to pay for three school places, an apple a year for pensioners, and to pay students to go round and chat to ill people after school, in an attempt to make them feel better.

Are my careful attempts to balance the economy with desirable social projects wasted?

No, it's just that issues can sometimes conflict with other stats [or each other]. It happens.

the happiest nation in the world has citizens who really can not afford basic medical care, varied and interesting diets, decent educations...

I organise a "drive along their border in shiny cars, waving our exciting technical gadgets, showing off our disease-free bodies and eating tasty foodstuffs imported from all around the world" parade.

Are they still happiest? Huh? Anyone want to join me in making them see how mistaken they are?

Hmmm...I think I come across as evil here....

I agree it's pretty silly. Would it be too complicated to revise the game? Is this something we can only hope for in a forthcoming version (if there ever is in fact a forthcoming version)? I mean, today we got the list of the happiest nations (I'm a new player, so it's the first time I've seen it), and they are almost all 100% taxation police states. I find it hard to believe that this would make a nation happy. is this just an example of "Oh, well, it's just a game, has nothing to do with reality," (which seems to defeat the purpose of the game) or is this somehow part of the author's lesson? Or is it just unexpected consequences of the game design?

While I'm at it, why am I a Guest?

"the happiest nation in the world has citizens who really can not afford basic medical care, varied and interesting diets, decent educations"

Well, they appear to have withdrawn currency, so it's not really a matter of citizens being able to afford stuff, anyway. Education is pretty much relative to environment, and the people could very well be sufficiently educated. Besides, a society with a long-established culture free of currency isn't going to be so materialist as a capitalist state, anyway.

One should bear in mind that we don't really know how the economy's rated in NS. Is it relative to GDP, or what? If so, that's the total value of goods produced and services rendered in the nation... as such, many seemingly powerful capitalist economies are completely pointless, churning out billions of dollars worth of consumer commodities nobody really needs, and a digital watch certainly wouldn't be enough to make me a happier person. All the important services may still be provided by public works in a none-capitalist state, but the lack of movie/pop-music/pro-sports posters on people's walls, the absence of private transport in the face of effective public mass transit or the lack of need for excessive travel (without people commuting to work in the city, for example), the long-life of a well made pair of shoes compared to trendy hundred-dollar trainers meant to fall apart and be replaced, will all contribute to an apparently small economy.


...and perhaps they're all just on home-grown drugs.

No, it's just that issues can sometimes conflict with other stats [or each other]. It happens.

I've looked at many of the issues and they are a bit far reaching at times. Meaning their impacts often seem too strong.

I'd rather see a few more secondary stats and more issues targeting those. I'd also encourage that the mods consider modifying the "binary" issues by adding additional options.

A number of us dismiss with great frequency, because there are more quirks in some of these issues. (And yes, there always will be quirks and the like, but still ...)

It's possible to have an imploded economy, and still have "elderly citizens buying mansions" "government paying for all health drugs" etc etc.

Even at 100% income tax, you'd expect a government with an imploded economy to be able to just about raise the funds to pay for three school places, an apple a year for pensioners, and to pay students to go round and chat to ill people after school, in an attempt to make them feel better.

Are my careful attempts to balance the economy with desirable social projects wasted?
I have a 100% average tax rate, a Frightening economy (thats the highest), A powerhouse of a private sector dominated by the Gambling industry (where do they have the money??) and I'm ranked 3,158th in the world for Happiest Citizens. I clean the floor with my stats (11, 15, 13) against even Libertarian nations, and I still manage to maintain the environment.

In short, yes, your careful attempts to balance the economy with desirable social projects are wasted

I've got a 100% tax rate, Frightening economy, and I'm ranked 2,772nd in the world for Happiest Citizens. If that means anything.....

Economy is generally taken to refer to GDP, GNP, cash flows, etc. It's very deceptive how it works, and it works very strangely with countries that don't play by capitalist rules.

You might want to think of it as "How rich the rich really are."

And to note... yes, I'm only 6000-somethingth for happiest citizens. Ever since I lost that "Imploded" rating, they've been getting more and more depressed... I used to get a lot higher. Economy is weak, private industry is nonexistent, income tax is 100%. Meanwhile, Tahar Joblissans rank very high in enviromental concerns, intelligence, public health, compassion, police numbers, low crime rates, etc. Curiously enough, even when we had an Imploded economy, we ranked very high in per capita military spending - usually 75th-80th percentile, which would not be possible according to some of the calculators floating around.

Economies are often weak because the government is busy spending everything. Socialist reform is hardly wasted; it works. Come knocking in my region and you'll see.

"the happiest nation in the world has citizens who really can not afford basic medical care, varied and interesting diets, decent educations"

Well, they appear to have withdrawn currency, so it's not really a matter of citizens being able to afford stuff, anyway. Education is pretty much relative to environment, and the people could very well be sufficiently educated. Besides, a society with a long-established culture free of currency isn't going to be so materialist as a capitalist state, anyway.

One should bear in mind that we don't really know how the economy's rated in NS. Is it relative to GDP, or what? If so, that's the total value of goods produced and services rendered in the nation... as such, many seemingly powerful capitalist economies are completely pointless, churning out billions of dollars worth of consumer commodities nobody really needs, and a digital watch certainly wouldn't be enough to make me a happier person. All the important services may still be provided by public works in a none-capitalist state, but the lack of movie/pop-music/pro-sports posters on people's walls, the absence of private transport in the face of effective public mass transit or the lack of need for excessive travel (without people commuting to work in the city, for example), the long-life of a well made pair of shoes compared to trendy hundred-dollar trainers meant to fall apart and be replaced, will all contribute to an apparently small economy.


...and perhaps they're all just on home-grown drugs.

Look... happiness and wealth are not the same, but don't you go tell me that an income of €60.000 per year does not make life easier for you than if you are working in a developing country for €0,40 an hour.

I mean... seriously... there is a limit to "OMG CAPITALISM MAKES YOU UNHAPPY" if you have no economy. You do need services and that sorta thing.

Yes, maybe there are Amazonian tribes with nothing but little mudhuts that are happy, but I would really prefer to live in a decent house with cable internet and NS thankyouverymuch, and I think most of humanity agrees with me on that.

The thing that is so inherently unfair about NS is that, in iincome tax tax, 100% + 1% = 100% so the commie nations can just increase spending.

If that nation with the imploded economy supposedly spends more on welfare than me where the smeg is that money coming from?

EDIT:
Oh, yes, the point of this rant. I think it is fine that the socialist nations with the imploded economies of this world have their smug moralistic superior attitude about social equality and how evil the rest is, but at least acknowledge that you are a developing nation as well. Including things like having no food and such.

I myself roleplay (and have, by NS stats) a more liberal nation with a frightening economy AND just broke the 1k barrier for happiness. Poverty does not make you happy. But I do acknowledge that there are some serious social problems in my country. I also have seen nations that succesfully combine socialism and a good economy, so it is very much possible.

Er...you know this 'game' was designed to sell a book...
Then it sort of got a life of it's very own...

So there are definite diffrences in reality/game play. Hell I have to ignore most of the issues I get since I always want to answer "None of the Above" I guess my government is run by Monty Brewster...

Look... happiness and wealth are not the same, but don't you go tell me that an income of €60.000 per year does not make life easier for you than if you are working in a developing country for €0,40 an hour.

I mean... seriously... there is a limit to "OMG CAPITALISM MAKES YOU UNHAPPY" if you have no economy. You do need services and that sorta thing.

Yes, maybe there are Amazonian tribes with nothing but little mudhuts that are happy, but I would really prefer to live in a decent house with cable internet and NS thankyouverymuch, and I think most of humanity agrees with me on that.

The thing that is so inherently unfair about NS is that, in iincome tax tax, 100% + 1% = 100% so the commie nations can just increase spending.

If that nation with the imploded economy supposedly spends more on welfare than me where the smeg is that money coming from?
1.) Efficiency concerns. A country with a strong capitalist economy is likely to have far less effect for the effort spent on welfare. People demanding high salaries for skilled work, people trying to jack the system, skimming off the top, etc.
2.) Fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the government causes the rotten economy. Government consistently overspends ---> ergo, in spite of truly massive spending, the economy - measured by how industry is doing - is in the crapper.
3.) Total control. Your government probably controls a significantly smaller chunk of the economic output of your capitalist nation that a communist nation will. In theory, some of these centralized economies are 100% managed by the government.

Very happy nations with imploded economies may well have most of the good services of life... just delivered at high efficiency and with fewer luxuries. Cuba, for example, is a relatively poor country, but they get dramatic results out of their public health care system that seem entirely out of proportion with their (equivalent) funding level. It's been estimated that the people of the US spend roughly seven times as much per person between public and private sector on health care, and the results - as measured in UN statistics - are pretty close between the two nations.

*facepalms*

There we go again.

If a socialist nation has a frightening economy then they can claim being rich all they want, IMO. Frankly, I think it is cheating if you constantly answer your issues like:
"Don't allow gold mining because the lake is more important"
"BAN woodcutting because trees are people too!"
"BAN computers, because they are not in touch with mother earth"
"Compulsory vegetarianism... because I am a vegetarian myself"
"Declare entire country a wildlife reserve. I like my national animal."
"People can get pensions after they finish their studies because work is opression."
... then eventually your economy should suffer. I'm not saying that all socialist nations do that, because they don't. There are many nations who just balance out economy and ecology/welfare. Celdonia, Tanah Burung, etc etc. The list goes on forever. I myself also try to balance it even if it is edged a bit more towards the liberal side.

But I do have an objection to people (regardless of their political conviction) who CONSISTENTLY choose against their economy and then use arcane economic theory to justify why they are not as dirt-poor as all their rankings indicate. ("Yeah... the calculator says our GDP is €40,- per capita but we have no money so we can still have an advanced space fleet!!! ") *cough*certainanarchistwholikesbigbutts*cough*

I say that to judge how rich a nation is you should look at its economic rankings and ratings, not at the ideology of the player behind the nation.

(Btw I edited the first post a bit after you posted your reply ;) )

My anti-business, pro-business, small community minded government causes unbridled unhappiness. We have a 12% tax rate, a Frightening economy, and "some of the most opulent lifestyles in the region," yet we consistently rank in the bottom for happiness (104,621st as of now). In fact, since the early days of FW (where I was something like Iron Fisted Socialists), we've been some of the least happy.

anti-business, pro-business, small community minded government.

ROFL... you gotta love that.

But I do have an objection to people (regardless of their political conviction) who CONSISTENTLY choose against their economy and then use arcane economic theory to justify why they are not as dirt-poor as all their rankings indicate. ("Yeah... the calculator says our GDP is €40,- per capita but we have no money so we can still have an advanced space fleet!!! ") *cough*certainanarchistwholikesbigbutts*cough*

I say that to judge how rich a nation is you should look at its economic rankings and ratings, not at the ideology of the player behind the nation.

(Btw I edited the first post a bit after you posted your reply ;) )

Actually, I would note that the GDP calculator is severely screwed up, particularly with regard to imploded economies. I commonly consider North Korea IRL to have an Imploded economy, along with several dozen other assorted nations. We refer to them this way for a good reason (people are starving, standard of living is horrible, etc etc etc)... yet North Korea has a GDP per capita of about $1000, and most of the GDP calculators estimate $100 per capita for Imploded economies. In fact, according to many of the GDP calculators, there are NO RL countries with Imploded economies. The lowest registered GDP per capita is about $500 - this is more than many calculators place "Basket Case" at. In other words, the calculator is messed up. If you analyze the other levels that GDP calculators place the categories at, they just don't fit very well.

There are also other RL nations that have roughly $1000/capita GDPs and don't have much trouble feeding their people. GDP is a very artificial figure. It is useful, but has severe limits, and as a measurement, it completely falls apart when dealing with certain countries. I generally take Economy as a measure of the mean standard of living re: the whole private possessions bit.

It's not so arcane that things cost less in poorer countries. Ever taken a trip to mainland China and shopped these past few years? Everything's a whole lot cheaper. Why? People have much less money in relation to the international exchanges, so money is more valuable. Wages are lower, prices are lower... for the same mid or low standards of living, the actual price is far lower. $20 will get you jack for an anti tank weapon in the US... but over in Afghanistan a couple years ago, you could pick up some goodies.

When I had an imploded economy, I'd actually rank in the top 1/4-1/5 in the UN for defense spending per capita - not as a priority overall of the government, raw per capita spending. That's a very hard figure for spending to justify if your GDP is indeed 40 pounds per capita; in fact, looking around at NS and RL, that would seem to indicate defense spending around the equivalent of $2000-$2500 per capita... twenty to twenty five times as much as some would claim my country's entire production was. Well, that gives me a very good reason for why I should have an Imploded economy - severe overspending on non-developmental projects - but it doesn't fit very well with the picture painted. At the same time, Defense spending was not, by any means, the #1 spending priority... I think it peaked at #3 or #4 if it was even mentioned.

There is a big difference between a country that spends its economy to death, and a country that simply has jack to start with. Similarly, other UN rankings about public health et al should tell you pretty clearly that a nation like my own - although poor in material goods - is not one of those nations which has jac. k. Clearly, living is austere, life is simple, and to a large extent... economized. I've made a point of playing it in this fashion.

Tahar Joblis is a poor nation... but a poor nation with grand projects. Much as Cuba can somehow afford to train more doctors per capita than almost any other nation on the face of the planet, much as the Soviet Union could put out enough AKs and tanks to drive Cold War theorists into nervous fits... Tahar Joblis manages a stellar public health system, defense forces sufficient to defend itself, frequent fair elections, happy people, and a beautiful country. Nobody owns much - hardly six computers, three TVs, two refrigerators, a three story house, and umpty ump unused excersize machines sitting in every house - but it works out in the end.

My anti-business, pro-business, small community minded government causes unbridled unhappiness. We have a 12% tax rate, a Frightening economy, and "some of the most opulent lifestyles in the region," yet we consistently rank in the bottom for happiness (104,621st as of now). In fact, since the early days of FW (where I was something like Iron Fisted Socialists), we've been some of the least happy.
Are you in the UN? UN nations are generally happier. ;)

Well I think with the whole 100 + 1= 100 thing, then after 100, your economy drops. It does actually keep track of how high taxes are, then when you lower taxes, you have to lower them more to get past 100.

And I'm not totally sure about the whole happiness thing how that works.

volunteers given tools and materials
(and often nature itself can provide many if not most of these
when there is not a legal structure that prevents this)
can build things and grow things

expecialy if useful knowledge of how to do so is also
freely available

so you see money is only a symbol which represents value
and represents it poorly in any real cost bennifit context
and is not the actual value itself

it is the great fallacy of the circular logic of monetary
economics to immagine the contrary

symbolic value can be more convenient then dragging your cow
arround with you, that's why currency was invented, but once
the cow itself can be transfered electronicly, the progriming
for replicators or even their primative predicessors such as
rapid prototyping tools for example, the concept of currency
itself becomes obsolete.

as well as it does in a potlatching economy.

there are many more models then most monetarily fixated
economic theorests seem to realize that are not currency
dependent at all. and at least some nations actualy use them. carlemnaria itself being post monetary as well as
post petrolium yet with quite a good bit of quite comfortable
sustainable tecnology.

a little green piece of paper, just like a word used to describe something
is only a symbol and not ever the thing itself

the thing little green pieces of paper represent is transferable value

remember people enjoy doing things
they may not always like supporting some value system
or way of looking at things they don't buy into

but nearly everything you do generates some kind of real value
that may or may not be readily transferable

the most honored citizens in carlemnaria are those who create
usefull value and give it away
asking nothing in return save the honor they earn by doing so

can they eat this honor you may ask?

well yes and no
but it is the only real form of true wealth

as for eating
you know nature does most of the work of growing food
or it can if it's allowed to

and many people enjoy creating and maintaining the infrastructure
to distribute it

well i won't go on trying to describe the kinds of nonfeduciary
institutions that make all this possibe

though i've touched upon this a bit more on my own website.

there is also something called deep ecology
you might google if your interested in some things
that migh surprise familiar assumptions

=^^=
.../\...