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

[PurgatoryHell]

I have spent literally more than five years building my economy and this issue took my GDP from 11,000 Trillion to imploded at less than 500 Trillion.

No single issue should have this much effect on years and years of work. It's extremely frustrating and demoralizing to see all of my work negated by this.

You have no idea how upsetting this can be. These kinds of drastic effects should never be allowed.

[Sedgistan]

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.

[Harkback Union]

But from 100 to 0?

[PurgatoryHell]

No. The option is very misleading. It says to cut all unprofitable businesses. Not every subsidy. I didn't choose to cut every subsidy. Just unprofitable ones. This issue is a trap and 100-0d my nation.

You guys need to fix the issue. If it takes years to build it up it should take years to take it down. Your logic contradicts itself when you say that I need to start building from zero again. So where's the option to send it to 100?

[Harkback Union]

Yeah, If 100% of business subsidies went to enterprises that didn't turn a profit and cutting said subsidies resulted 100% of the enterprises going bankrupt, then that suggest that 100% of them were un-profitable which wouldn't really make sense as then the economy should have collapsed long ago.

[PurgatoryHell]

And that's what I'm gathering from it. There would have been no tax base and hyper inflation because there was no profit.

I had no inflation. My exchange rate was 2.14-1 in my favor.

I'm not buying the explanation. I've been playing long enough and have championed an excellent economy long enough to have a general idea what is going to happen by reading the option. That wasn't the case there. This is way overboard and did the exact opposite of what I would have ever expected.

I think this is one of those very rare instances that have never happened that you guys need to revert back my stats. This issue is way overboard

[PurgatoryHell]

And furthermore at my last check only around 15% of the entire government spending was spent on subsidiaries and industry. There is absolutely no way possible that 15% caused a 95% drop in my GDP.

I can't accept the explanation given to me. It doesn't add up.

[Valrifell]

The guy is clearly an advocate for less-government intervention. "The market is smarter than a bunch of bureaucrats," So he's going to think ALL subsidized businesses are not profitable. Honestly, just spend one second thinking about who is advocating what option and what it could possibly mean for the nation instead of reading one sentence and assuming "Yeah! That totally isn't going to have a negative consequence!" And you won't have a problem.

[PurgatoryHell]

You obviously don't get it. No single Issue should knock out 9,500 Trillion from a GDP

[Minoa]

Hi,

What option number did you choose in #443? I can do something to warn others against choosing that option by adding it to my wiki issues database.

Sadly, issue effects are not reversible as far as I know.

[Valrifell]

You obviously don't get it. No single Issue should knock out 9,500 Trillion from a GDP

You don't get it. It's the way you set up the economy. Obviously, with an economy as reliant as yours, it will start to crumble if even a few are removed. A purely free market capitalistic nation wouldn't get the same effect.

[PurgatoryHell]

For 11 years I have understood how to build an economy. I get it way more than you do. This issue is just plain wrong. The results are back asswards. Youre not doing anything but arguing so I'm going to ask you to stop posting on this thread.

I'm trying to get a problem with an issue fixed. Not get lambasted by a complete fool.

[PurgatoryHell]

Hi,

What option number did you choose in #443? I can do something to warn others against choosing that option by adding it to my wiki issues database.

Sadly, issue effects are not reversible as far as I know.

Option 3. To remove government from the market and stop funding worthless endevours.

One would believe that removing government intervention would increase economic freedoms. And by defunding unprofitable enterprise than more money would get passed to profitable endevours.

Instead this issue guts your economy because it takes your tax rate to zero and eliminates all economic incentives. Unemployment goes to near 100% and GDP tanks 95%.

17% of my GDP was business subsidies and that 17% eliminated my entire economy. That's proof positive this issue is very very flawed in the way it dishes out results. It should be modified or removed.

[PurgatoryHell]

Also note this issue will completely ruin your nation. Nobody can take a 0 economy to 100. It is not possible the way the game works.

[Harkback Union]

The guy is clearly an advocate for less-government intervention. "The market is smarter than a bunch of bureaucrats," So he's going to think ALL subsidized businesses are not profitable. Honestly, just spend one second thinking about who is advocating what option and what it could possibly mean for the nation instead of reading one sentence and assuming "Yeah! That totally isn't going to have a negative consequence!" And you won't have a problem.

So the Issue basically does something different then it says? Are we supposed to do psychoanalysis on Imaginary people in the issues now based on the half line of text they have to say?
What would have made sense if this issue decreases subsidies at a similar rate other issues increase it.

[Kesshite]

This sounds like a kissing-cousin to issue 221.

Notice that Shaktirajya's and Fauzjhia's economies remain at 0 despite having it tank in May and both being active since then.

But from 100 to 0?

And I wonder,
still I wonder,
Who'll stop the rain?

[Valrifell]

For 11 years I have understood how to build an economy. I get it way more than you do. This issue is just plain wrong. The results are back asswards. Youre not doing anything but arguing so I'm going to ask you to stop posting on this thread.

I'm trying to get a problem with an issue fixed. Not get lambasted by a complete fool.

Now you're talking down to me for not a god damn reason. I'm not the idiot here, you wanna get pissy at someone get pissy at the author or editor, I had no hand in this issue.

[Valrifell]

The guy is clearly an advocate for less-government intervention. "The market is smarter than a bunch of bureaucrats," So he's going to think ALL subsidized businesses are not profitable. Honestly, just spend one second thinking about who is advocating what option and what it could possibly mean for the nation instead of reading one sentence and assuming "Yeah! That totally isn't going to have a negative consequence!" And you won't have a problem.

So the Issue basically does something different then it says? Are we supposed to do psychoanalysis on Imaginary people in the issues now based on the half line of text they have to say?
What would have made sense if this issue decreases subsidies at a similar rate other issues increase it.

No, I'm saying take obvious bias into account and think about what author intended the option to be like. It's not that hard to pick wisely.

[PurgatoryHell]

You obviously don't get it. No single Issue should knock out 9,500 Trillion from a GDP

You don't get it. It's the way you set up the economy. Obviously, with an economy as reliant as yours, it will start to crumble if even a few are removed. A purely free market capitalistic nation wouldn't get the same effect.

My pro market rating is 89. That's nearly as free market as the game allows. Try to check stats before you make an assumption. Nations with similar pro market ratings
Have had increased economies from this issue. I'm sticking to reason. This issue is flawed at its core.

[Torsiedelle]

I was also pretty much screwed over by this.

I've been building my economy back up since then. It's painfully slow, but I'm sure I can get it back up with time.

[Luna Amore]

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.

It's already been brought up with the admins. We'll post here when they get back to us. There's no reason to post here until then, so please stop sniping each other.

---

I was also pretty much screwed over by this.

I've been building my economy back up since then. It's painfully slow, but I'm sure I can get it back up with time.

You've never received issue #443.

[PurgatoryHell]

Thanks Luna. My apologies

[[violet]]

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

[PurgatoryHell]

Thank you very much Violet. It completely bewildered me as to why that happened. I had expected to take a hit in exchange for greater economic freedom but not a complete collapse

[Kingdinium]

I've just had this same issue affect me. It's all rather annoying, having spent so many years building my economic rating up. At least the only way from here is up. I will be back at 100 soon, hopefully!