The improvement to the economy is likely due to the increase in economic freedom. Sure, big businesses might sometimes profit from eminent domain, but they can also be victims of it, if the government decides this place needed a hospital more than a shopping mall. Eminent domain on residential buildings can still hurt the economy because it demoralizes employees, threatens house-renting companies, and so on.Betelgeuse Alliance wrote:Option 1 (which abolishes eminent domain), shows that the economy is more likely to go upwards, as well as the rudeness. But shouldn't economy go down, since the government can't build the big economically profiting shopping complex anymore?
The issue wasn't always this way, but it was revamped two years ago. I think we can agree that the old version - practicing eminent domain increasing economic freedom while abolishing eminent domain decreasing economic freedom - didn't make sense.
Rudeness is a derived stat, which the editors probably don't often directly assign a value to.Betelgeuse Alliance wrote:And shouldn't rudeness go down instead of up due to the fact that the government asks explicit permission to take away private property, (which I think should lead to less insults per minute, since the government doesn't do it forcefully)?
While your logic makes sense that oppressing people would likely lead to them having some rude words for you, I think the idea is that greater freedom means people have more leeway to speak their minds. If the government can take away people's homes at will, they'll be afraid to criticize the government for fear of some bureaucrat deciding to fudge the paperwork so that new carpark has to be built right where they live.
I am confident that these numbers correctly represent how the game currently works. If you still believe this behavior to be incorrect, please take it up with the editors.