This game loves screwing with me

[Populi-Terrae]

Am I the only one who notices that most of the choices for boosting the economy are morally reprehensible? My latest Issue was whether I should maintain or abolish the slave trade. I chose the latter, but one of the last Issues was whether I should allow officers with guns on airplanes. I chose for airport security to be overseen by private corporations.

[Randsbeik]

I can see what you're getting at, I go with privatising pretty much everything, so now we have McLegislation™.

[Kiwination]

It's not impossible, that's for sure. You can keep your morals and have an economy too, it just takes time to do so. The economy can be boosted in a lot of ways, but those which immediately boost it usually are paired with short-sighted decisions that could conflict with a person's moral standing.
Anyways, is this really a F7 thread?

[Aclion]

Yup, economic freedom is directly tied to wealth inequality in the code.

[Rejistania]

I would not be too sure about that...

[Drasnia]

The game tries to make every decision tough by having pros and cons. Boosting the economy generally means one of two things - raising taxes for subsidies or loosening regulations that many people see reprehensible (child labor, slavery, pollution, etc.). On the flip side, many decisions will boost some stats but will hurt the economy. The player thus has to make tough decisions based on what their priorities and beliefs are.

[Naasseners]

Yup, economic freedom is directly tied to wealth inequality in the code.

Yes. Changes in Economic Freedom are reflected almost 1:1 in Wealth Gaps (and it's opposite, Income Equality).

But really, as others said, you can have great economy while keeping your morals. But combining that with high industry stats is considerably harder. With a possible exception of book publishing, information technology, and basket weaving. Those don't require quite as many underhanded measures as the other fields.

[Australian rePublic]

Issues are SUPPOSED to screw with you. If they don't, it's a pretty shitth issue

[Dmitry II]

Every issue has typically two, three, four and sometimes five options.
Sometimes there are some morally acceptable options which can be beneficial to your nations, but this is REALLY rare. I'm pretty sure Max Barry and the people making the issues want to see us suffer.
If you are patient, you can always dismiss an issue and wait for that once-in-a-lifetime agreeable decision, or you can weigh the options and ask: is the economy more important than morals in this circumstance?
If you make the choice (or mistake) to sacrifice your economy or to go against your morals for what you consider "the greater good," just know that there will always be some way to rectify your error gradually with other issues.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The issues game at its best is about making hard choices, rather than just being a user survey to describe your utopia. That's design-as-intended.

Of course, it can be much more than that too. It can be a fun exercise in narrative exploration for its own sake. It can be a minigame where you pick a stat and see if you can reach #1 in the world in it.

In actuality, one of the main principles is that there is no win condition or universally desirable outcome. A great economy is no more valid a goal than an imploded one.

As for economy vs morals, one of the things about satire of this sort is that its often going to draw attention to the costs of things we take as positive. Broadly, this is pretty realistic in a lot of ways. Corporation that don't have to answer for their externalities are more profitable corporations. "I keep what's mine" goes hand in hand with both "I will work harder to get more" and "Your suffering is not my problem."

It isn't entirely that simple though. If you try to run a compassionate country with a ruined economy, your tax rate will show you that the cost is that nobody gets to control their own money. OTOH, if you build a strong economy, you can then afford welfare, education and the rest. The question is, what are you going to sacrifice to get what's important to you?

[The Loonation]

It's not impossible, that's for sure. You can keep your morals and have an economy too, it just takes time to do so. The economy can be boosted in a lot of ways, but those which immediately boost it usually are paired with short-sighted decisions that could conflict with a person's moral standing.

yes, my economy is going upwards now (no free market, pro-environment, etc.)
there are just the right issues, but you can t choose which one will come next, so indeed it takes time (i'm still below 50)

Yup, economic freedom is directly tied to wealth inequality in the code.

but economy/econ.-output is not, i've seen states with high numbers in both rankings

With a possible exception of book publishing, information technology, and basket weaving. Those don't require quite as many underhanded measures as the other fields.

and trout farming i think

A great economy is no more valid a goal than an imploded one.[...]Broadly, this is pretty realistic in a lot of ways.?

i think that summs it up pretty well, for me e.g. cheerfull citizens is a more prioritized ranking stat than economy, it's just not one of the 3 trend ranks. than again political freedom is important to me, someone else could maybe not have a moral problem with less of them.

realistic is the dilemma indeed, as i must say, the outcome of most issues is really realistic [although some are less understandable for me]

[Dunraven]

With a possible exception of book publishing, information technology, and basket weaving. Those don't require quite as many underhanded measures as the other fields.

and trout farming i think

Whaling and overfishing issues can be problematic, especially for greener nations.

[The Loonation]

Whaling and overfishing issues can be problematic, especially for greener nations.

it is anyway to me, due to veganism.
and btw i hit the 50 border with my economy