Hmm. There's a lot to talk about here.
First, there's the problem of which version of economic freedom to use; or, of distinguishing between capitalist and socialist nations. As it presently stands, the game uses two varieties of economic freedom.
The first is used to reckon the nation's category. The second takes that first value and, if the nation is flagged as socialist, slaps a -100 penalty on top. This 'socialism penalty' exists so that all socialists rank below all capitalists. This system does lack something in both elegance and consistency. It can lead to a scenario where a socialist country is a 'Capitalist Paradise' that ranks below a capitalist country that is given the label 'Democratic Socialists.'
All this tolerable enough on its own, but when it comes to the matter at hand, this simply won't do.
In light of all this, I do wonder if a revision would be in order. The penalty does serve a purpose: a socialist nation should indeed have lower economic freedom. It should not be done away with, but I do wonder if there is a better solution.
I thus propose an alternative: the penalty, rather than adding a flat -100, would half the original value. This halved value would be used both for reckoning categories and for ranks. This would, it must be said, suitably fulfill the purpose of the present system, while also sorting out a few problems.
First, no more disagreement between rankings and categories.
Second, socialist countries would be limited to the low and middling EF categories, while capitalist countries would be able to fall into any category. This means that you can't have a socialist Capitalist Paradise,--it's quite evident from the descriptions of the high EF categories that they should be reserved for capitalist nations--but a socialist country can have
some freedom.
One could interpret this middling freedom as the socialist economy involving market-based alternatives to Soviet-style central planning, ala the market socialism of Tito's Yugoslavia, Proudhon's mutualism, or what have you; while those in the lower categories would have a more traditional centralised system.
Third, it would mean that there could be overlap between capitalist and socialist countries in EF at the lower and middle levels (Rank Index under 50). I hold that this would make sense It's not beyond imagination that a nation could retain all the formal trappings of the capitalist system while so thoroughly regulating it that it comes to resemble the centralised systems of the socialists--dirigisme on 'roids, if you will--and so finds that it ranks among the reds.
And, not least of all!--whereas I cannot speak with authority on the discipline of programming, I do very much suspect that this change would be rather easy to code into the game.
Alas, 'tis now my bedtime, but do trust that I'll subject you to more of my ramblings tomorrow.
Sedgistan wrote:I should clarify, because I misspoke in my previous post. The measure currently on the nation home page / trend line is "Economic Efficiency" not "Economic Strength".
On that point... Sedgistan, what in the world happened to your Anarchy's economy?