LazarusBoard

Divine egypt wrote:

Why cant I be pro-business and pro-environment? I hate how the game makes you choose between two extremes - you're either a worker's communist paradise with high taxes or you're a free market hellhole with no worker protections and a crap environment.

That’s the game for you. Don’t expect a realistic simulator, especially considering that NS is based off of a dystopian novel :P

Free market buisnesses wrote:

You can be pro business and pro environment, but environmental regulation inhibits economic freedom by its very definition. That said, you could be low taxes with environmental regulation, but keep in mind that the more laws you have, the more infrastructure is required to enforce them, and the more taxes are required to maintain the infrastructure.
In short environmental regulation requires maintenance by infrastructure that requires maintenance by taxes. Therefor, to be pro worker and pro environment without raising taxes, you'd need to cut something else such as military or education.

We have pretty decent public services but I think the Pharaoh may have to make some painful cuts to these in order to promote business.

Jus solisia wrote:

That’s the game for you. Don’t expect a realistic simulator, especially considering that NS is based off of a dystopian novel :P

This is true.

Aigania wrote:

And yet again the persisting myth of the efficiency of fascism on economy. Sigh, it was a mirage based on the plundering of assets of minorities, it couldn't be sustained on time. More to the point, without supervision or checks and balances the skyrocketing corruption and competing agendas with often lethal results for the losers worsened the situation.

The examples from the WWII are quite abundant.

The game doesn't behave the same depending of the size and number of times an issue is selected. In high enough levels of a variable the results may change drastically. At the beginning you can install for a time a politics that you may abhor but the end result may pave the way to more civilized forms along the way.

In my primary nation, Nuremgard I ended up with horrendous tax rates (97%) because I spent years building up its public services. It had and still has a very bloated public sector despite me iposing massive austerity cuts in order to reduce taxes. So you're right, issues will affect various nations differently depending on how old they are, how robust their public services are etc.

I was going to implement feudalism and slavery to go along with the ancient Egyptian culture of my country but I don't think I'll bother just for practical reasons. Every time I've introduced both policies, they make unemployment worse.

Divine egypt wrote:

In my primary nation, Nuremgard I ended up with horrendous tax rates (97%) because I spent years building up its public services. It had and still has a very bloated public sector despite me iposing massive austerity cuts in order to reduce taxes. So you're right, issues will affect various nations differently depending on how old they are, how robust their public services are etc.

I was going to implement feudalism and slavery to go along with the ancient Egyptian culture of my country but I don't think I'll bother just for practical reasons. Every time I've introduced both policies, they make unemployment worse.

Well yeah, who can compete with forced labor?

New vedan wrote:

All authoritarian systems are cringe af honestly. I mean seriously what kind of dumba$$ wants to give up all there and freedoms rights away to the government. I dont know about yall but I personally enjoy being able to do what I want to do and say what I want to say without fear that the secret police isnt going to kick my door down and drag me away into the night.

Only a braindead retard looks at Nazi germany and facist Italy and says "Hey that's a great system! Genocide,curroption,the complete and utter loss of everything that makes men free...Wow why arnt we using this system today? I wanna get killed in a concentration camp for disagreeing with my country's leader! That's sounds like a absolutely wunderbar way to die!"

And that goes for the commies to. Youd think that the fall of the soviet union would be enough to tell these people that Karl Marx's vision was nothing but a unrealistic pipe dream but no. They just keep on saying "True communism hasn't been tried yet" as if a worldwide communist government is even remotely possible. All the communist partys in the world promise everything under the sun to there supporters so they can get themselves in power, and then they reward those supporters with starvation and death! I swear the only reason the facists and communists hate each other is because there fighting over the same idiots.

First off, with the USA running around spreading propaganda, staging coups, and economically sanctioning everyone, it'd be hard to get elected. Even if you did manage to convince your people to ignore the US war propaganda, the odds are pretty good that the USA would come in and either assassinate you and/or stage a military coup to set up a friendly government. And even if you didn't get replaced by a military dictator loyal to the US, you'd still have to deal with the fact that all of your economic trade partners have cut ties with you to avoid the US cutting off ties with them. Once you're here, your people will starve and there will be a revolution. One way or another, the USA gets you. Of course, there is a way out, a path to survival! Unfortunately that path is called the USSR.

Second, revolutions are inherently likely to result in dictatorships. It's because most revolutions are fronts for military coups, and even the ones that aren't are usually plagued with fear of counter revolutions. Additionally, a revolutionary leader needs to have all the same qualities that a dictator needs to have in order to be effective, and since they lead a revolution, it'll take people a while to catch on that he's not actually going to relinquish power.

In short, communism failed because the US wouldn't allow it to succeed and revolutions are inherently likely to result in dictatorships. The only way communism could succeed is through a democratic government, but the US would never allow something like that to exist.

Divine egypt wrote:

In my primary nation, Nuremgard I ended up with horrendous tax rates (97%) because I spent years building up its public services. It had and still has a very bloated public sector despite me iposing massive austerity cuts in order to reduce taxes. So you're right, issues will affect various nations differently depending on how old they are, how robust their public services are etc.

I was going to implement feudalism and slavery to go along with the ancient Egyptian culture of my country but I don't think I'll bother just for practical reasons. Every time I've introduced both policies, they make unemployment worse.

Sometimes even a policy would seems to work on the intended purpose. Nonetheless if you want to introduce a policy that you think it is vital to your vision of the Nation or the gameplay you should just wait.
Many times in under billions or just beginning nations, some quirks or combinations of issues has a lasting effect.

If you are consistent (RL years) in issues selecting, you can have a high enough stable nation that could endure some policy option that normally would cause havoc (although you have to be careful).

For example, trying as you as to lower the insane tax rate I trashed my economy (the economy was "socialist" and the sudden lowering of taxes of public spending destroyed the economy because the industry was public. So I had to go for a round of several months of pro capitalist/free market economy to increase the economy again before going again "socialist".

The same for security. The crash drastically increased criminality and the normal options (rehabilitation) wouldn't abate hard enough the crime rate, so again, temporally had to implement a hard authoritarian stance before I could relax the measures.

In the end, it's a game of patience and persistence.

P.S. (About the tax rate I give up to the mechanic of the game and let it went to the top of 100 %). Perhaps some day ...

Divine egypt wrote:

It's so simplistic, as if income tax is the only form of revenue a government can generate.

The thing is that the game for the satirical take it has it carries to some extremes as to become absurd. For example, with a 100 % tax rate (higher by the stats ranking), all the money is taken but also reinvested as being the only one, both with the means and the obligation.

Even more, if in game you play a nation with a socialist economy where the economy is also state-owned the it is simply a game of Solitaire. Of course more deranged with capitalists, where is the money coming from?

You are completely right about the excess simplification about the nature of taxation in-game.

Divine egypt wrote:

I just checked your stats. If I was a poor person in your nation making 333,979 a year and the state took all of that off me, I would be piiiiissed. But I'm sure they get excellent public services in return lol

In game mechanics make it even more deranged. All the work, all the economic activities that can be automated, has been already (with sentient citizen AIs with in-game issues taken).

The housing is public, as all the economy (including public utilities), even the issue to have public mess halls to uphold standards of nutrition, among compulsory tertiary education and massive healthcare system.

But although it is socialist the biggest part of the economy it is not in government hands, instead it is in state-owned industry.

So it will be more like a university campus, and old industry colonial or in the military.

There are no meaning on the disposable income because all of the necessities are taken care off, while you are mainly doing ancillary work for research, IT and pleasure (tourism is the second biggest industry).

Basically we are a really oversized picturesque college town city made a gargantuan nation.

P.S. Although we are open to tourism due to some issue taken alcohol among tobacco are forbidden although we have a fantastic cultural and eco-minded tourism and the weather is fantastic.

Free market buisnesses wrote:

You can be pro business and pro environment, but environmental regulation inhibits economic freedom by its very definition. That said, you could be low taxes with environmental regulation, but keep in mind that the more laws you have, the more infrastructure is required to enforce them, and the more taxes are required to maintain the infrastructure.
In short environmental regulation requires maintenance by infrastructure that requires maintenance by taxes. Therefor, to be pro worker and pro environment without raising taxes, you'd need to cut something else such as military or education.

What dose shoeshiner mean

What dose the shoeshiner influence mean

Divine egypt wrote:

As for communism, I loathe the USSR and the current Chinese government but communism is about ushering in a classless, stateless society. The Soviet Union was state capitalist.

Classless,stateless society=A fairy tale. Nothing of the sort can or will ever exist.

Free market buisnesses wrote:

angry rant

The Soviet Union wasn't sh*t because of communism, the Soviet Union was sh*t because it was an authoritarian dictatorship. Personally, I would argue that the Soviet Union was fascist. And also do you know whose fault it is that all communist government in the Cold War were either failures that starved or psychotic dictatorships like Russia? It was America's fault! They stomped around the world forcing everybody to cutoff all ties with communist nations and starting coups! With America trying to bash in the skulls of any fledgling communist nation they could get their hands on, they had no choice but submit to Stalin or starve! Do you know what really makes people starve? ISOLATING THEM ECONOMICALLY AND STARTING A MILITARY COUP IN THERE GOVERNMENT!!! Communism didn't fail because it leads exclusively to Stalin, communism failed because if a communist nation wasn't backed by Stalin, we killed them! Communist nations starved because we didn't allow them to succeed. Oh, and communism ISN'T A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. Saying communism and fascism is like saying Ethiopia and Walmart. Sure, they're both organizations, but they're PRETTY F***ING DIFFERENT!!! Maybe try and understand what you're talking about before you start comparing things. I mean, how's a nation meant to feed its people when the UNITED STATES IS PREVENTING TRADE‽‽‽ And by the way, the unrealistic pipe dream wasn't communism, it was that America would allow them to live!
Communism isn't inherently authoritarian, it's just an economic system. The reason there were so many authoritarian communist governments and a notable lack of democratic communist governments comes down to two main factors. USA interference and the issues inherent in revolutions.

First off, with the USA running around spreading propaganda, staging coups, and economically sanctioning everyone, it'd be hard to get elected. Even if you did manage to convince your people to ignore the US war propaganda, the odds are pretty good that the USA would come in and either assassinate you and/or stage a military coup to set up a friendly government. And even if you didn't get replaced by a military dictator loyal to the US, you'd still have to deal with the fact that all of your economic trade partners have cut ties with you to avoid the US cutting off ties with them. Once you're here, your people will starve and there will be a revolution. One way or another, the USA gets you. Of course, there is a way out, a path to survival! Unfortunately that path is called the USSR.

Second, revolutions are inherently likely to result in dictatorships. It's because most revolutions are fronts for military coups, and even the ones that aren't are usually plagued with fear of counter revolutions. Additionally, a revolutionary leader needs to have all the same qualities that a dictator needs to have in order to be effective, and since they lead a revolution, it'll take people a while to catch on that he's not actually going to relinquish power.

In short, communism failed because the US wouldn't allow it to succeed and revolutions are inherently likely to result in dictatorships. The only way communism could succeed is through a democratic government, but the US would never allow something like that to exist.

Ok wow, wasnt expecting that. Let's see where should I begin....

1. The USA is not the source of all the worlds problems. During the cold war the Soviets did just as many underhanded things as we Americans did. And they helped there friends out just as much as we did. The commies had just as much of a chance to succeed as the Capatalists and they blew it.

2. Communism IS inherently authoritarian. You cant just go and take away everybody's stuff and expect them to be ok with it. And likewise you cant redistribute the wealth without a massive centralized authority to say who gets what and how much. Power corrupts and communist governments are given unlimited power. China, North Korea,The USSR, they all were given control the entirety of there nations private property which they were trusted to redistribute "Fairly". We can see how that turned out. Once you turn over that kind of power to the government then that's it, there not giving it up and you have no way to take any of that power back for the people. Communism lacks the checks and balances that western democracies have.

3. Communism goes against human nature. Throught all of time there has been have and have nots. With the exception of small primitives tribes every nation in history has been composed of people that are wealthy ruling over people who are poor. Whenever something happens to even the playing field (such as a uprising) the status quo always winds up reemerging, even if the people who were once rich are now poor and vice versa there is still wealth inequality. This is because it is human nature to try and succeed in life, and horde as much wealth and prosperity as you can for yourself and those that matter to you. We may be willing to give scraps to the needy and help our neighbors from time to time, but usually that only happens when we have the time and recorces to bother caring about other people.

4. There are simply not enough recorces on this planet to go around evenly, which has always been a soure for conflict throughout millennia. For example If you have 2 bananas and 7 hungry people then how do you decide who gets to eat? And furthermore if you come up with a solution then how do you force the ones that dont get to eat to listen to you? When communists are confronted with scarcity the higher ranking party leaders make sure that they and there families and friends are first in line for the scarce recorces. Then if theres any left they will "redistribute" it very slowly. And if anyone starts making trouble because the state is not providing what it should, then they disappear. This goes against what communism is supposed to be all about, but goes along with human nature quite perfectly. As long as there are a limited ammount of recorces to go around (which there always will be.) Then inequality will always exist.

Divine egypt wrote:

I'm sure aristocrats said the same thing about the monarchy before revolutions swept Europe. Just because you cant imagine it happening doesn't mean it cant or wont happen.

No m8 republic's had existed in Greece long before the monarchs. That was very real and possible threat. Worldwide communism and "classless society?" That's make belive. Hell you do know that any worldwide government attempt would fail because it would require world conquest right? And that any world conquest attempt would result in total atomic annihilation. And I think I already explained it out how a "classless society" is impossible on a national scale.

Communism just does not work, yall need to learn to accept that fact and start living in the real world.

New vedan wrote:

4. There are simply not enough recorces on this planet to go around evenly, which has always been a soure for conflict throughout millennia. For example If you have 2 bananas and 7 hungry people then how do you decide who gets to eat? And furthermore if you come up with a solution then how do you force the ones that dont get to eat to listen to you? When communists are confronted with scarcity the higher ranking party leaders make sure that they and there families and friends are first in line for the scarce recorces. Then if theres any left they will "redistribute" it very slowly. And if anyone starts making trouble because the state is not providing what it should, then they disappear. This goes against what communism is supposed to be all about, but goes along with human nature quite perfectly. As long as there are a limited ammount of recorces to go around (which there always will be.) Then inequality will always exist.

Please keep in mind that the current situation of the 'haves' vs 'have-nots' isn't whether or not somebody is going to starve to death vs not, it's people who can afford gold plated private jets and those who can't even afford to live in a real house. IRL we HAVE all the bananas we need to feed everybody, it's just that those who own the bananas don't want to, because that means less money for them. There is so much excess in our daily lives yet so much poverty, and that really doesn't make any sense, especially since we don't have infinite resources to throw around like you say.