#443: Five Year Plans And New Deals needs revised or removed

[Kesshite]

I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest.

Kesshite one of the top 1% in the world for subsidized governments. At times, I consider lowering government support of business, but between this and issue 221, fear that doing so will cause my economy to plunge like Lucifer dropping from heaven.

[PurgatoryHell]

I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest.

Kesshite one of the top 1% in the world for subsidized governments. At times, I consider lowering government support of business, but between this and issue 221, fear that doing so will cause my economy to plunge like Lucifer dropping from heaven.

Hopefully, in months to come these types of issues won't be able to annihilate an economy. The information violet has provided makes me believe that they won't. I'm optimistic that there can be a middle ground approach that lets us reduce dependency moderately and be able to rework our economies without having to start over to build back up.

I'm optimistic. That would be a wonderful solution to the problem.

[Koalemos]

my country got affected by this issue once and my economy went from 96 to 0 and I got the issue again now I don't know what option to choose. My economy remains zero till this day.

[Red-East]

Hi Admins!

I chose option #3 as well...Can I get it reversed back?

Thank you!

[Lockdownn]

Hi Admins!

I chose option #3 as well...Can I get it reversed back?

Thank you!

The code of #443-3 was fixed. Thank you for bringing up the problem.

You got the issue after the fix.

[Red-East]

First, kudos to the admins who fixed this issue.

This has led me thinking-is there a general "consensus" on what works and what does not on NS? The author who contributed to this issue, "Bureaucratic Paralysis", currently has an imploded economy. I'm not saying that this person's political views are wrong, but one can expect that an economic issue submitted by him/her are likely to have the opposite effects of what one would normally expect. For example, a tax cut may drastically improve the economy in the eyes of a "corporate bordello", but if the author happens to be a "democratic socialist" then the economy might be devastated.

Issue contributors should have a good idea of the general tone of this game before submitting issues, especially if some of the options can drastically change the course and stats of a nation. It's subjective, I know. But we need to sacrifice our individual ideological beliefs (don't get me wrong, I was a democratic socialist when I first started out) if we are to ensure serious, consistent, quality gameplay.

[The Real Matrix]

I got this issue about a week ago and just now saw this thread. Could I get my stats reverted please?

[Red Star Union]

I'd like it fixed.

I don't believe you've had this issue.

If I didn't have this one, then I had a nearly identical one.

[[violet]]

my country got affected by this issue once and my economy went from 96 to 0 and I got the issue again now I don't know what option to choose. My economy remains zero till this day.

Not this issue. Your nation can actually boost that up without too much trouble.

I got this issue about a week ago and just now saw this thread. Could I get my stats reverted please?

Fixed.

If I didn't have this one, then I had a nearly identical one.

Possibly the infamous "Outdated Tax Code" issue, which can have similar effects.

[Holy Marsh]

I think #221 may have been the one that wrecked me for a bit. It sounds somewhat like it, but the possible answers don't seem to reflect the answers in that one. Whatever the case, I actually went to dismiss it but my page was still loading stuff, so it did that thing where it loaded the image at the top as I was clicking, leading to me landing on a decision. I didn't think anything of it because I thought I dismissed it, closed my phone, then everything was messed up. Then I had this follow up issue when I came home about my economy collapsing and needing to reinstate my tax codes and I was alarmed. Now I don't have that unreasonably high defense budget and defense forces, and my sad puppy status remains. xd

[The Real Matrix]

Thank you violet! I appreciate it very much.

[Kaztropol]

Also note this issue will completely ruin your nation. Nobody can take a 0 economy to 100. It is not possible the way the game works.

This is not true. Depending on how bad the economy is, it could take a while, but nations have brought their economies back from Imploded/Near Imploded: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=gig_ ... tail=trend and http://www.nationstates.net/nation=kazt ... tail=trend

Oh hey, it's me !

Yeah, for a long time, it was at 0, and I was unsure why that was the case. Some issues later, and some progress was made. Still not at 100, but I think the income per capita is more or less what it was before I got that issue 221.

I think perhaps there still aren't enough issues with economic effects, as opposed to political or civil effects, so, depending on your luck with the issues, it can be a while before you can start doing stuff. Setting to 2 issues a day helps.

[Traemont]

I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest.

Kesshite one of the top 1% in the world for subsidized governments. At times, I consider lowering government support of business, but between this and issue 221, fear that doing so will cause my economy to plunge like Lucifer dropping from heaven.

Hopefully, in months to come these types of issues won't be able to annihilate an economy. The information violet has provided makes me believe that they won't. I'm optimistic that there can be a middle ground approach that lets us reduce dependency moderately and be able to rework our economies without having to start over to build back up.

I think everyone agrees that the issue before the bug was a problem. You're not going to fix that by changing the economic model, though; it's always possible to write a bug that will get things drastically wrong. There's no magic way to prevent all bugs.

I think the issue after the fix may be fine, though. There might be plenty of reasons why one might want to completely eliminate industry subsidies, especially if a few crept in inadvertently (in my case due to the conquest of Brasilistan), and take the associated economic hit. I would agree that the economic hit shouldn't exceed the economic benefit one got from instituting the subsidies in the first place, but it sounds like that might be true now that this issue is fixed.

Now, I do think economic subsidies are way too effective in the NationStates economic model: in reality, economic subsidies tend to benefit the subsidized sector, but only at the cost of hurting the rest of the economy, which gets to pay higher taxes to support the subsidies. I don't see a lot of player complaints about this inaccuracy, though.

[Trotterdam]

Now, I do think economic subsidies are way too effective in the NationStates economic model: in reality, economic subsidies tend to benefit the subsidized sector, but only at the cost of hurting the rest of the economy, which gets to pay higher taxes to support the subsidies. I don't see a lot of player complaints about this inaccuracy, though.

I've seen a player complaining when NationStates inconsistently does decide to have subsidies hurt the eceonomy for once (in #107: "I propose that the government subsidises the production of all drugs so everyone can benefit from them").

I do dislike how the game is prone to punish not having subsidies, as option 3 would be my preferred choice on #030 but I don't recall NationStates liking that choice. Fortunately, I've now banned cars so it doesn't come up anymore

[Luna Amore]

Now, I do think economic subsidies are way too effective in the NationStates economic model: in reality, economic subsidies tend to benefit the subsidized sector, but only at the cost of hurting the rest of the economy, which gets to pay higher taxes to support the subsidies. I don't see a lot of player complaints about this inaccuracy, though.

I've seen a player complaining when NationStates inconsistently does decide to have subsidies hurt the eceonomy for once (in #107: "I propose that the government subsidises the production of all drugs so everyone can benefit from them").

Taking the entire quote in context makes the effect much more apparent: "So the people who need the most help shouldn't get any? I propose that the government subsidises the production of all drugs so everyone can benefit from them, rich or not! That way the money-hungry corporations won't profit from the suffering of the masses."

[Traemont]

Now, I do think economic subsidies are way too effective in the NationStates economic model: in reality, economic subsidies tend to benefit the subsidized sector, but only at the cost of hurting the rest of the economy, which gets to pay higher taxes to support the subsidies. I don't see a lot of player complaints about this inaccuracy, though.

I've seen a player complaining when NationStates inconsistently does decide to have subsidies hurt the eceonomy for once (in #107: "I propose that the government subsidises the production of all drugs so everyone can benefit from them").

I'll admit to not being surprised that players complain when a choice hurts their economy, but not when it helps their economy. I will note that both choices 1 and 2 in that question involve subsidies; I bet choice 1 doesn't hurt the economy, so it's not all that inconsistent. To me, if the drug company thinks the drug will be so profitable, there's no need to provide any governmental help, so I dismissed the issue, but I'm sure that neither helped nor hurt my economy.

I do dislike how the game is prone to punish not having subsidies, as option 3 would be my preferred choice on #030 but I don't recall NationStates liking that choice. Fortunately, I've now banned cars so it doesn't come up anymore

Agreed, although I seem to recall that abolishing the minimum wage on that one limited any economic damage, and presumably increased economic freedom.

[Kesshite]

Now, I do think economic subsidies are way too effective in the NationStates economic model: in reality, economic subsidies tend to benefit the subsidized sector, but only at the cost of hurting the rest of the economy, which gets to pay higher taxes to support the subsidies. I don't see a lot of player complaints about this inaccuracy, though.

You're right, I've never seen a player complain that a choice they made did exactly what they wanted it to do.

Because that would be crazy.

[Trotterdam]

You're right, I've never seen a player complain that a choice they made did exactly what they wanted it to do.

Because that would be crazy.

Well, I found an old post of mine that's sort of complaining.

Does it make sense that I have a maximized economy and several strong industries with a 99% tax rate? No. But given that's how the game appears to work, I'd rather have the high economy than a lower tax rate.

Ultimately, though, it's like I said here - I found out how to game the system to get the results I want, so I'm going to do so even if it doesn't perfectly match my real-life political beliefs. If taxes stop being so improbably beneficial, it'd probably be a lot harder for me to keep all my nation's other stats where I want them.

[Alveus]

There might've been a good reason why, but I still can't sort out why my economy went from 96 to 0 in one event. Where should I look to sort that out. Or do economies just occasionally implode?

[Nickel Empire]

There might've been a good reason why, but I still can't sort out why my economy went from 96 to 0 in one event. Where should I look to sort that out. Or do economies just occasionally implode?

You the issue that destroys your economy. Issue 221 brings down your economy to 0 if you answered the third option.

[Phydios]

There might've been a good reason why, but I still can't sort out why my economy went from 96 to 0 in one event. Where should I look to sort that out. Or do economies just occasionally implode?

You the issue that destroys your economy. Issue 221 brings down your economy to 0 if you answered the third option.

There's a couple other issues that have the potential to do it too, but I don't remember which ones.

[Kaboomlandia]

You the issue that destroys your economy. Issue 221 brings down your economy to 0 if you answered the third option.

There's a couple other issues that have the potential to do it too, but I don't remember which ones.

#242, option #2 can do that. We call that one the "North Korea" issue.

IIRC, #443 also crashed a few economies, but the IEs acknowledged that was a bug and fixed it.

[Luna Amore]

Looking at the timing and what issues you've had, I think you received 443 before the bug fix. If that is the case, [violet] will reverse the effects.

Moved to Got Issues and merged with relevant thread.

[Alveus]

Looking at the timing and what issues you've had, I think you received 443 before the bug fix. If that is the case, [violet] will reverse the effects.

Moved to Got Issues and merged with relevant thread.

What is the turn around on that repair?

[Luna Amore]

Looking at the timing and what issues you've had, I think you received 443 before the bug fix. If that is the case, [violet] will reverse the effects.

Moved to Got Issues and merged with relevant thread.

What is the turn around on that repair?

Had [violet] take a look. Looks like yours was actually the result of issue #242 Option 2 which is not related to any bug. Here's the option for reference:

2. "Give me that!" interrupts your brother, incorrigible as always. "I've got an idea, bear with me for a moment... a few penstrokes here... a few clauses there... finished. Now you can set yourself up as Supreme Evil Overlord For Life! If you don't have complete control then where's the fun? That's what I say. I've taken the liberty of cutting some of the more boring departments, we only really need the police and military in my opinion. Oh! You get a free space hopper too."

So you cut your entire gov't except military and police which had drastic effects.