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

[Anseris]

Hello, I recently got this issue and chose option #3 as a pro-market alternative, and got my economy struck down from 83 to 55 in a single day.

May I ask that options promoting free market don't sink the economy like this? Seriously, how in the world cutting subsidies could be the economic equivalent of what outlawing elections mean to political freedom?

[Luna Amore]

Hello, I recently got this issue and chose option #3 as a pro-market alternative, and got my economy struck down from 83 to 55 in a single day.

May I ask that options promoting free market don't sink the economy like this? Seriously, how in the world cutting subsidies could be the economic equivalent of what outlawing elections mean to political freedom?

Your economy fell from 83 -> 77 -> 55. It wasn't one fell swoop, it was two. So another issue contributed to that drop. Your nation doesn't have an overwhelming amount of momentum in any stat, so that option pushed your nation to an anti-business subsidies position.

You are an extremely new nation, so your stats are much more malleable. Overtime your nation will (for the most part) become more stable.

[Anseris]

Hello, I recently got this issue and chose option #3 as a pro-market alternative, and got my economy struck down from 83 to 55 in a single day.

May I ask that options promoting free market don't sink the economy like this? Seriously, how in the world cutting subsidies could be the economic equivalent of what outlawing elections mean to political freedom?

Your economy fell from 83 -> 77 -> 55. It wasn't one fell swoop, it was two. So another issue contributed to that drop. Your nation doesn't have an overwhelming amount of momentum in any stat, so that option pushed your nation to an anti-business subsidies position.

You are an extremely new nation, so your stats are much more malleable. Overtime your nation will (for the most part) become more stable.

Yeah, I'm a new player and I'm loving this game, and that's why I'm actually more concerned about the way of thinking of those in charge of the issues than the challenge to recover my nation from this one.

I think its cool some drastic measures to shrink the government that actually shrink the economy along, like dissolving the police for example. I think most people both on the left and right agree that it would be a little hard to get your business going in the middle of a civil war for territory between warlords, and many other obstacles to capitalism we can easily imagine in a place ruled by a ruthless thug and his mob. Or closing the Central Bank, leaving the country without a national currency, that would lead to some serious economic mess too. But to decrease economic interventionism should not be one of them, actually that's what RL nations in serious economic crises are required to do to receive loans.

So, let me leave here too an appeal for a revision on the mechanics of issues like this.

[Norengland]

I just got this issue again(?) and I'm terrified. The last time I saw it, or I think it was this one anyway, it took my economy from 100 to 0 and I haven't been able to change a thing since. I had forgotten what the issue was after I came back to see the fallout and have been wondering about it for a while now...

100 to 0 is pretty drastic. At least give me basket weaving or something D:

[Traemont]

The 100 to 0 was a bug. Now that it's been fixed, you should expect something more like 99 to 1. (Okay, kidding, but still you should expect a substantial drop.)

[Norengland]

The 100 to 0 was a bug. Now that it's been fixed, you should expect something more like 99 to 1. (Okay, kidding, but still you should expect a substantial drop.)

Does this mean the economic record will be altered for me? Even a little bit would be nice. It was many issues ago when it happened though.

All I can really say is that it was the most surprising issue I've ever encountered in Nationstates.

[Traemont]

I just got this issue too. I'll be selection option 3 as it's really the only one that would make sense in a real economy, even if it works perversely in NationStates.

Stats before the issue: economy 78, government 17.3% of economy, industry 8.4% of government, economic size 18.8 trillion, average income 77,397, ratio 43.3 to 1.

Edit: after the issue: economy 52, government 14.6% of economy, industry 0% of government, economic size 15.0 trillion, average income 61,563, ratio 49.6 to 1.

Still seems questionable that a reduction in government spending of 2.7% of the economy would result in a 21% reduction in the economy as a whole, but it's not 100 to 0. If your government is 40% of the economy, and industry 40% of government, you might get a 100 to 0 result.

[Apollion]

Hello all. I think I also suffered from a huge economic fall that seemed unjust but was not with issue #443 (or maybe it was?). I honestly forgot what issue caused my huge economic crash. I know it didn't feel right that the economy that I worked at keeping strong would just implode after just one issue. Although I have been using NS for a little while, I'm still newbish about most of the functions.
But I do know that after the issue my economy fell from 98 to 0, from Frightening to Imploded. I have chosen quite a few pro-business options in my issues since, but it has not budged in the slightest. I'm not an ancient nation but I'm not a new nation either, so I hoped that any decision I chose wouldn't utter destroy me like that one did.

Any advice or help from anyone would be greatly appreciated!

[Traemont]

Your private industry is only a third of the economy, and government subsidies to private industry are only 2.5% of government spending.

In the real world, you would need to cut way back on government spending - cut it in half at least - reducing taxes and perhaps deregulating industry, taking a hit to environment and social services. In NationStates, you probably need to start picking every subsidy to private industry that you can, and veto any spending on anything else for the time being. Note that most things that involve government action involved government spending.

[Apollion]

Your private industry is only a third of the economy, and government subsidies to private industry are only 2.5% of government spending.

In the real world, you would need to cut way back on government spending - cut it in half at least - reducing taxes and perhaps deregulating industry, taking a hit to environment and social services. In NationStates, you probably need to start picking every subsidy to private industry that you can, and veto any spending on anything else for the time being. Note that most things that involve government action involved government spending.

It still stinks that relatively big nations' economies can crash from 98 to 0 from one issue though.....

[Alterrea]

I had a probem with this issue too. From 50 to 20.

But it seems it has been already fixed.

[Teuberland]

Some issues have to have strong effects, to allow nations to change direction. While many people like to build their nations up constantly in one direction, there has to be a way for them to change course, and without taking several years of contrary decisions to do so.

In your case, you'd built up your business subsidies over a number of years to boost your economic strength. You chose an option that says:

"What socialistic nonsense," retorts Finance Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@, taking a break from scowling at jobless protesters. "That food price shock wasn't because of too little government meddling. The real cause was bad planning, a side-effect of half-baked subsidies. The market is smarter than a bunch of bureaucrats, so we should cut all subsidies propping up enterprises that don't turn a real profit. And if some people still can't find bread, then let them eat cake."

...which as it says, cut all your business subsidies. That is obviously going to have a big impact on your economy.

Having said all that, you've got a relatively high level of economic freedoms, which should keep your economy fairly strong. There's a slight disjoint in representing this on the trend graph as a result of some changes from the refactoring a while ago. I've brought it up with the admins again, to see if it can be resolved.

Note: that's re. the economic freedoms, not restoring your level of business subsidies. You chose to cut them, and thus you'll have to build them up again if you wish to.

My nation is an anarchy and for that matter I've had issues where I rejected subsidies.

[Teuberland]

I'm looking into this. It's definitely a bad outcome: your Economy rating should be around 73, not zero.

Hey Mr/Ms/Mz/Mrs/Your Honorable Violet, my economy tanked from around 66 to 16. It's better than 100 to 0, but still pretty awful. Is there hope for a rebuild?

[The Great Algerian Empire]

Before I choose option #3; is my economy gonna tank?

I haven't put as much work and time into it as the other's, however it is 97 and the GDP is 331, 240, 000, 000, 000 (331 trillion) US dollars (real) and I wanna keep it that way. I would like some guarantee that my economy will not drop below 50 or 60.

Also, I have 11% of federal funding going towards Industry (I wouldn't mind this being reduced considerably, especially to "enterprises that don't turn a real profit" or the "half-baked subsidies").

Thank you,
Algeria

[Drewsnia]

So then, what is the right decision to this?

[Eliapolis]

I answered this issue a few days ago and chose to remove all subsidies (which I assumed would do nothing, since I already had no subsidies; they were sitting at -10). It dropped my subsidies another six points to -16... and also took my economy from seventy-seven to forty-four.

Something seems very wrong here. I already had essentially no government. My tax rate at the time was around three percent. This issue should have caused very little to change about my economy, rather than completely destroying it.

[Reti]

This issue's been the death of my economy twice over, and once your economy is imploded it's very hard to get it back up, I've been going through a recession for a few months now once again because of it...