[DRAFT] It’s Graining in East Lebatuck

[Fauxia]

See: United States and Soviet Union in 1970s and 1980s. I’m not entirely sure whether this differs enough from other issues but I don’t have the inspiration to write anything else right now so I’m putting this on here.

I’m wondering if this might have a sister issue, of a socialist nation with good agriculture versus a capitalist nation with poor agriculture from soil erosion or something. Food for thought.

Current Draft: 1.4

[description] East Lebatuck is known in the world as the "Iron Giant" of communism. Typically, trade between @@NAME@@ and this flagship of the second world is limited, due to mutual suspicions of the other’s economic system. However, in the midst of a famine, East Lebatuck is beginning to purchase foodstuffs, especially grain, from @@NAME@@.

[validity] capitalist, good agricultural sector, no autarky

[option] "This is a fantastic opportunity to show the superiority of the free market!" gasps Treasury Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@, exhibiting his usual "nervous habit" of rubbing Maxopoly money out of @@HIS@@ hands. "Every sale of grain to East Lebatuck is proof of our economic superiority and the failures of communism. It’s a fantastic advertisement to see the communist motherland dependent on our grain! You’ve got to encourage this trade - provide subsidies to corporations that do commerce with East Lebatuck, and we’ll make ourselves rich while proving capitalism’s superiority once and for all!"
[fallout] exports are stamped with "made by the invisible hand you commies"

[option] "If the Minister really cared about showing the communists, @@HE(1)@@ wouldn’t bail them out," claims Junior Treasury Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@, ripping the toy bills to shreds in an attempt to take them away. "This famine is just socialist policy at its core. The best way to show capitalist superiority is by letting the Lebatuckese face the consequences of their folly and starve. If they want to open up some opportunities for enterprising citizens in their country, they can ask our noble corporations for grain again.
[fallout] the nation makes a stand for capitalism by starving poor people in foreign countries

[option] "Or you could use this opportunity to make the world a safer place!" exclaims hippie and known communist sympathizer @@RANDOMNAME@@, who’s probably protesting something but no one really cares. "Starving people’s not cool man. But neither is that arsenal of nuke-bombs the Lebatuckese have. So how about you just send some grain over without payment on the condition they disarm some of those? Give commun- wait, wrong line, give peace a chance, man!"
[fallout] there is no "rad" in radiation

[Polis Diamonil]

How about an option - in democratic states only - for a socialist politician to advocate for a broader expansion of small margin trade with the socialist states? Not all of the socialist nations in NationStates are communist. There are plenty of egalitarian nations which have high taxes and capitalism. Some of those could be proud to trade with "red block" countries.

I doubt I'm truly charismatic, but I can imagine this being said in defense of the idea:
"Instead of just trading wheat, we could have our diplomats using the demand for wheat as a foot in the door for finding other mutually beneficial trades. Emphasis on mutual benefit, of course; we should lean on businesses to give good prices to the Lebatuckese. If we can strengthen socialist economies in trade, we can show the world how capitalism can serve the needs of the impoverished, too."

Trying to expand trade connections while pressurizing the prices would jiggle the economic freedom meter unpredictably, while being a polite way for a nation to (probably) make a (small) profit. If the option is written right (I doubt I did it), the rhetoric should be have the ambiguity of its wiggle in the economic freedom potentials. Egalitarian nations would do it for solidarity with comrades of a different economic system, while capitalist nations might even see a political freedom gain should they listen to a socialist talking about gains from trade with socialists.

[Australian rePublic]

Why is option 3 if they're paying for it?

[Fauxia]

Why is option 3 if they're paying for it?

I’m sorry? I’m not quite sure I understand...

I thought it in character for the hippie to support a friendly option with disarming. Since he’s a communist sympathizer, he probably isn’t big on the whole market thing.

[Candensia]

Option 2 feels like a “do nothing” option to me. It makes sense, but may be infringing upon the dismiss button.

[Fauxia]

Option 2 feels like a “do nothing” option to me. It makes sense, but may be infringing upon the dismiss button.

My bad, I guess I didn’t make it very clear. The option was supposed to be an embargo.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Option 1 is the "do nothing" button. Maybe you could add that we should make a big deal out of the trade, publicising the dependence of East Lebatuck on @@DEMONYM@@ food exports.

[Fauxia]

Edited, although I’m not sure how much I love how I wrote option1. May be worth a redraft soon.

[Australian rePublic]

East Leb? Over here "Leb" is short for Lebanese person. Further, why would leader object to East Lebatuck importing denonym goods?

[Fauxia]

East Leb? Over here "Leb" is short for Lebanese person. Further, why would leader object to East Lebatuck importing denonym goods?

Because, as option 2 says, it’s bailing out ideological enemies.

I’ll edit the East Leb thing then I think, maybe just to make sure no one is offended.

[SherpDaWerp]

no autarky

No idea how autarky works, but surely you can be self-sufficient without being isolationist - @@NAME@@ might not buy food, but they could sell it.

bowl of coins

On the topic of validities, this requires a check that the nation has physical currency. I like the image - it's funny - but is there another way to put it that doesn't explicitly involve hard cash?

[Trotterdam]

No idea how autarky works, but surely you can be self-sufficient without being isolationist - @@NAME@@ might not buy food, but they could sell it.

What good does foreign money do you if you're not willing to buy anything back using it?

Also, #1185 covers this question.

[Chan Island]

exports are stamped with "made by the invisible hand you commies"

Win.

[Fauxia]

Also, #1185 covers this question.

Is this a response to me?

no autarky

No idea how autarky works, but surely you can be self-sufficient without being isolationist - @@NAME@@ might not buy food, but they could sell it.

Autarky is complete withdrawal from trade, as I have always understood it.

On the topic of validities, this requires a check that the nation has physical currency. I like the image - it's funny - but is there another way to put it that doesn't explicitly involve hard cash?

Doesn’t have to be real money.

[Trotterdam]

Also, #1185 covers this question.

Is this a response to me?

No, to SherpDaWerp.

[SherpDaWerp]

No idea how autarky works, but surely you can be self-sufficient without being isolationist - @@NAME@@ might not buy food, but they could sell it.

What good does foreign money do you if you're not willing to buy anything back using it?

Also, #1185 covers this question.

My thoughts were that it would be something like this: Jim the grain maker sells his excess grain to East Lebatuck. He then uses that money to buy other @@DEMONYM@@-made goods. And I read 1185 - it's not really what I'm talking about. 1185 is more about whether it's ok to condemn other countries to poverty by not buying their goods, not really whether it's ok to sell to other countries.

Self-sufficiency is when you don't need others to survive. My "jim the grain maker" example is trying to make that point - if he only buys @@DEMONYM@@ goods, then he isn't dependent on other countries for their goods. It's more a question about whether NS-Autarky is a stand-in for self sufficiency or for isolationism.

Autarky is complete withdrawal from trade, as I have always understood it.

The isolationism approach. Fair enough.

On the topic of validities, this requires a check that the nation has physical currency. I like the image - it's funny - but is there another way to put it that doesn't explicitly involve hard cash?

Doesn’t have to be real money.

It's a bit hard to stir a bowl of virtual coins with your hands...

[Trotterdam]

My thoughts were that it would be something like this: Jim the grain maker sells his excess grain to East Lebatuck. He then uses that money to buy other @@DEMONYM@@-made goods.

That assumes that stores in an autarky are still willing to accept other governments' currencies. It's likely that many @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ stores would refuse to accept foreign money as payment, because they're cut off from the majority of the market that uses it. The @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ government very probably would not accept foreign currency as taxes, either. This would cause a snowball effect: the more stores that are already refusing foreign money, the more incentive other stores have to also start doing so. It's just too unreliable, since you can never be sure of being able to spend it.

If foreign money does get accepted for some reason, then constantly importing foreign money without spending it back on foreign goods would just lead to runaway inflation. You'd end up with too much money and too few goods, which is not a good situation for any nation to be in. It'd also be exactly the same as if the local government simply started printing more money, rather than importing foreign money. The nature of fiat money means that it's never difficult for governments to acquire more money, it's just usually not a good idea.

Either way, you might as well just give away your goods for free. (Which would be autarkic but non-isolationist, since you're still interacting with other nations, just not by trade.) You might still get some inflation, since your money-to-goods ratio goes up, but not as much as you would otherwise, especially if you only give away surplus you were otherwise going to just throw away.

Practically, the only reason reason to want money you can't spend is if you plan to put it in a museum or collection. And that's treating it as goods, rather than money, and you only need a few of each denomination.

A more reasonable "compromise autarky" approach that's sometimes suggested is to forbid import of goods the government deems "essential", such as food, but permit import of goods the government deems "non-essential", such as entertainment and luxury goods (which can still get pretty expensive, ensuring an adequate outflow of cash). However, I don't think any issue in NationStates currently allows you to implement such a system (though some issues about protectionism might be worth checking).

To avoid straying further off-topic, my point is: it is perfectly reasonable for this issue to be withheld from autarkies, and doing otherwise would only muddle the issue. Even if there is some gray area to be examined, that should be explored in its own issue.

Doesn’t have to be real money.

It's a bit hard to stir a bowl of virtual coins with your hands...

I think Fauxia meant it could be toy money from a board game or something.

Which might be weird for a greedy person to be satisfied with, given that it has little actual value, but then bowls full of coins are a pretty rare sight to begin with, even in nations that use coins.

[SherpDaWerp]

To avoid straying further off-topic, my point is: it is perfectly reasonable for this issue to be withheld from autarkies, and doing otherwise would only muddle the issue.

Alright, I'll take your word for it. It's been too long since I got an Autarky issue... I'm not sure anymore what NS-autarky entails. (Given that some NS economic policies don't fit the common definition)

It's a bit hard to stir a bowl of virtual coins with your hands...

I think Fauxia meant it could be toy money from a board game or something.

Which might be weird for a greedy person to be satisfied with, given that it has little actual value, but then bowls full of coins are a pretty rare sight to begin with, even in nations that use coins.

Ohhhh. Odd interpretation, and I certainly wouldn't have come up with that on my own, but I guess it passes. I just feel like leaving it in will confuse people.

[Fauxia]

If you have a better idea, I’m open to suggestions. Most countries do have physical currencies though. It works because it’s also amenable to those without.

[Fauxia]

Bumpity doo-da

[Fauxia]

I tweaked the issue a little. It doesn’t seem to be attracting many comments, so I’ll probably just submit if this bump doesn’t attract any.

[Lelscrep]

Yeah it looks nice. Just keep in mind some nations won't have the physical currency to create a bowl of coins.

Edit: And if they are toy coins or something similar, probably specify that.

[Pythaga]

I'm not a big fan of the second effect line. It doesn't feel funny or interesting to me.

I'd suggest something along the lines of:

the new motto of the nation's foreign aid program is "survival of the richest"

[Fauxia]

Yeah it looks nice. Just keep in mind some nations won't have the physical currency to create a bowl of coins.

Edit: And if they are toy coins or something similar, probably specify that.

Check out CWA’s signature

[SherpDaWerp]

Yeah it looks nice. Just keep in mind some nations won't have the physical currency to create a bowl of coins.

Edit: And if they are toy coins or something similar, probably specify that.

Check out CWA’s signature

For what it's worth, given it's been brought up twice now, surely it would be easier to just change it? It's good characterisation, but it obviously causes problems. If two people who already frequent GI are asking about it, how many people are going to rock up in the "Help Fix Old Issues" thread and say "but my nation doesn't have coins!"