So, why does socialism improve my economy?

[Atomic Utopia]

So I was looking at my nation and how it is, and realized that the issues I choose, at least in the nation I am posting from, seem to result in results that are the opposite of what most people would expect. Now I have a theory as to why that is.

When I started out this nation I meant it to be a stereotypical anticommunist hardliner, 1950's style USA country that did whatever was needed to fight the "commie menace". Then I decided to, a little while into it, change to a more socialistic path, not socialisim yet, but simply more regulation and better civil rights. This path continued for quite a while until a few months ago in which I decided to select the "nationalize everything" option as I was going to make this nation what amounted to a liberal socialist nuclear weapons happy country. This actually improved my economy and my economy has slowly been improving ever since.

The only things that appear to have not changed over the course of my issue selection etc. has been; 1. my constant funding of the police and support of more surveillance, an attitude of apathy or active persecution to all environmental regulation and environmentalism until recently, and an constant obsession with what will make the country more hi-tech.

Now this gradual introduction into socialism seems to have resulted in what was presumably an slow integration of the government into the economy and a complete reliance on government subsidy and control, completely ignoring all environmental regulation also meant that the economy would be quite capable in heavy industry, and high technology meant that that the economy would have it's base primarily be in the IT industry.

However, this does seem a bit odd, choosing the most socialist option in every issue seems to improve my economy, which is, to me, quite incorrect and not at all a model of how reality seems to work. Now from what I have seen, it appears that the economy stat is indeed a derived stat from several sources, among those subsidies, economic freedom, the various industrial stats, taxation, and bureaucracy. Looking over my nation it appears I have high subsidies, low economic freedom, high eco friendliness, high IT and most other industrial stats (excepting tourism due to poor environment), and through the roof taxation. Thus I believe it is possible that I have accumulated enough knock on effects to cause my nation to succeed in socialism, which to me is odd for the aforesaid reasons.

So what do you think the reason for my overwhelmingly weird economy working is?

[Rhodesia]

My theory is that the game is – intentionally or not – biased that way. That's why anything but the "democratic socialists" category comes with negative aspects. Max Barry even says as much (that it may be unintentionally biased) in the FAQ.

I think most just take it with a pinch of salt.

[Atomic Utopia]

My theory is that the game is – intentionally or not – biased that way. That's why anything but the "democratic socialists" category comes with negative aspects. Max Barry even says as much (that it may be unintentionally biased) in the FAQ.

I think most just take it with a pinch of salt.

Yes, I do too, but still, my economy is definitely a tad... odd, and I would really like to attempt to divine how exactly said economy determining code works. I bet that there is quite a bit affecting it, most likely all of the stats effect the economy stat, seeing how big that is.

[Povinksi]

So I was looking at my nation and how it is, and realized that the issues I choose, at least in the nation I am posting from, seem to result in results that are the opposite of what most people would expect. Now I have a theory as to why that is.

When I started out this nation I meant it to be a stereotypical anticommunist hardliner, 1950's style USA country that did whatever was needed to fight the "commie menace". Then I decided to, a little while into it, change to a more socialistic path, not socialisim yet, but simply more regulation and better civil rights. This path continued for quite a while until a few months ago in which I decided to select the "nationalize everything" option as I was going to make this nation what amounted to a liberal socialist nuclear weapons happy country. This actually improved my economy and my economy has slowly been improving ever since.

The only things that appear to have not changed over the course of my issue selection etc. has been; 1. my constant funding of the police and support of more surveillance, an attitude of apathy or active persecution to all environmental regulation and environmentalism until recently, and an constant obsession with what will make the country more hi-tech.

Now this gradual introduction into socialism seems to have resulted in what was presumably an slow integration of the government into the economy and a complete reliance on government subsidy and control, completely ignoring all environmental regulation also meant that the economy would be quite capable in heavy industry, and high technology meant that that the economy would have it's base primarily be in the IT industry.

However, this does seem a bit odd, choosing the most socialist option in every issue seems to improve my economy, which is, to me, quite incorrect and not at all a model of how reality seems to work. Now from what I have seen, it appears that the economy stat is indeed a derived stat from several sources, among those subsidies, economic freedom, the various industrial stats, taxation, and bureaucracy. Looking over my nation it appears I have high subsidies, low economic freedom, high eco friendliness, high IT and most other industrial stats (excepting tourism due to poor environment), and through the roof taxation. Thus I believe it is possible that I have accumulated enough knock on effects to cause my nation to succeed in socialism, which to me is odd for the aforesaid reasons.

So what do you think the reason for my overwhelmingly weird economy working is?

Same thing here. I believe it's because you can have socialistic policies, but still have a somewhat free market.

[Trotterdam]

Because the game assumes that the government works, and so a government-planned economy is a functioning economy.

The game has to assume the government works, because the government is the only thing that exists.

It's long-known that business subsidization unreasonably effective in this game at boosting the economy, while reducing taxation-and-subsidization in the name of promoting a free market generally backfires.

[New Shin Makoku]

So I was looking at my nation and how it is, and realized that the issues I choose, at least in the nation I am posting from, seem to result in results that are the opposite of what most people would expect. Now I have a theory as to why that is.

When I started out this nation I meant it to be a stereotypical anticommunist hardliner, 1950's style USA country that did whatever was needed to fight the "commie menace". Then I decided to, a little while into it, change to a more socialistic path, not socialisim yet, but simply more regulation and better civil rights. This path continued for quite a while until a few months ago in which I decided to select the "nationalize everything" option as I was going to make this nation what amounted to a liberal socialist nuclear weapons happy country. This actually improved my economy and my economy has slowly been improving ever since.

The only things that appear to have not changed over the course of my issue selection etc. has been; 1. my constant funding of the police and support of more surveillance, an attitude of apathy or active persecution to all environmental regulation and environmentalism until recently, and an constant obsession with what will make the country more hi-tech.

Now this gradual introduction into socialism seems to have resulted in what was presumably an slow integration of the government into the economy and a complete reliance on government subsidy and control, completely ignoring all environmental regulation also meant that the economy would be quite capable in heavy industry, and high technology meant that that the economy would have it's base primarily be in the IT industry.

However, this does seem a bit odd, choosing the most socialist option in every issue seems to improve my economy, which is, to me, quite incorrect and not at all a model of how reality seems to work. Now from what I have seen, it appears that the economy stat is indeed a derived stat from several sources, among those subsidies, economic freedom, the various industrial stats, taxation, and bureaucracy. Looking over my nation it appears I have high subsidies, low economic freedom, high eco friendliness, high IT and most other industrial stats (excepting tourism due to poor environment), and through the roof taxation. Thus I believe it is possible that I have accumulated enough knock on effects to cause my nation to succeed in socialism, which to me is odd for the aforesaid reasons.

So what do you think the reason for my overwhelmingly weird economy working is?

so thats how you become socialist without destroying your economy Free Market- Regulated Market - Central Planning

[Caracasus]

I've seen a few examples.... I'm starting to think that the key to improving your economy is not picking socialist over capitalist policies or vice versa, rather it seems to be consistency, bringing in change gradually if at all.

[Trotterdam]

I've seen a few examples.... I'm starting to think that the key to improving your economy is not picking socialist over capitalist policies or vice versa, rather it seems to be consistency, bringing in change gradually if at all.

Unfortunately, "consistency" in practice is going to mean "radicality". If this is true, then it would punish nations that try for a more moderate economy combining capitalist and socialist policies. Because I can want to have some welfare and curb clear abuses of corporate power without completely abolishing all semblance of a competitive market.

[Atomic Utopia]

I've seen a few examples.... I'm starting to think that the key to improving your economy is not picking socialist over capitalist policies or vice versa, rather it seems to be consistency, bringing in change gradually if at all.

Not really, I can and have run nations on the current model with a great deal of consistency and gotten a zero economy and a ruined environment. Complete randomness in that case would have been better. I think the key is choosing your options based upon how your economy is wired, if you have a big tourism industry but no manufacturing/mining, choosing the environmental options is a good idea, and likewise choosing the anti-environmental options will damage your economy.

Unfortunately, "consistency" in practice is going to mean "radicality". If this is true, then it would punish nations that try for a more moderate economy combining capitalist and socialist policies. Because I can want to have some welfare and curb clear abuses of corporate power without completely abolishing all semblance of a competitive market.

Well when I was running the current nation with a mix like you describe my nation's economy never dipped below 100. Only recently has my nation become socialist, which is quite interesting really.

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

I'm just going to say it so don't yell or complain, but since when does socialism equal an terrible economy? Many of the modern world nations are socialist and have an amazing economy (Switzerland is an example). Socialism just means that the public sector is greater involved in the economy. It's not a name for a collapsing nation.

[Atomic Utopia]

I'm just going to say it so don't yell or complain, but since when does socialism equal an terrible economy? Many of the modern world nations are socialist and have an amazing economy (Switzerland is an example). Socialism just means that the public sector is greater involved in the economy. It's not a name for a collapsing nation.

Well those countries have mixed market economies, quite a bit in distance form the socialist ideal, The idea behind socialism is simply that the "proletariat" control the means of production rather than the "bourgeois" this loose definition means that many things can be categorized as "socialism" ranging from the extreme of anarcho-communism, to corporatism, to a state planned economy. These concepts tend to exclude mixed market economies, where the economy is still largely controlled by market forces with only some government intervention. These concepts also tend to exclude functional things like mixed market economies which allow for the "bourgeoisie" to control the means of production in favor of non-functional things like state planned economies etc.

[CSN Founder]

My theory is that the game is – intentionally or not – biased that way. That's why anything but the "democratic socialists" category comes with negative aspects. Max Barry even says as much (that it may be unintentionally biased) in the FAQ.

I think most just take it with a pinch of salt.

"Scandinavian Liberal Paradise" also has no negative things mentioned.

I'm just going to say it so don't yell or complain, but since when does socialism equal an terrible economy? Many of the modern world nations are socialist and have an amazing economy (Switzerland is an example). Socialism just means that the public sector is greater involved in the economy. It's not a name for a collapsing nation.

These are by no means of the word socialism. Where are you even getting this? Socialism means the public sector, be it the government or the public (the employees and workers) themselves controls the entire economy.

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

I'm just going to say it so don't yell or complain, but since when does socialism equal an terrible economy? Many of the modern world nations are socialist and have an amazing economy (Switzerland is an example). Socialism just means that the public sector is greater involved in the economy. It's not a name for a collapsing nation.

These are by no means of the word socialism. Where are you even getting this? Socialism means the public sector, be it the government or the public (the employees and workers) themselves controls the entire economy.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/what-socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

I have more articles that could be used, but 3 should make my point. Yes, the public sector controls DOESN'T mean that no private sector exits. Socialism will allow a private sector IF AND ONLY IF it contributes to the overall well being and will benefit society instead of the few.

Honestly, I really don't want to argue about this that much because a while ago I had to write numerous reports about political parties, forms, and government types. Capitalism is the opposite of Communism, not socialism. Socialism deals with shared wealth by all means while communism deals with absolutely no private sector. In short, which would have been easier than writing all this, socialism can have, and quite often does, have some sort of private sector.

Anyway, I have gone off forum topic so let's just end at this. If you have any questions, tg me and I'll inform you more about government systems and their functions.

[Democratic Republic of Kaliria]

Hmm, my nation started with a socialist structure and it had an "imploded" economy but it has been steadily rising, even though everything is still government run and taxes are through the roof.