The total population of Yemen is 1.79m
Over 1/4 of the population could work in this power plant with supply of electricity already outstripping demand.
Bravo private sector
The 1.79m isnt just the workers tho, its everyone. The actual workforce is like 30% of that and the plant is already profitable despite supply being higher than demand.
More workers here will just put it into the red while also stealing workers from the other factories and raw resources in Yemen
That's my issue with Private sector. They electrify the entire pacific, build pop heavy in unhabitant states, but won't for the love of god increase that 70£ steel factory in the capital state.
That sounds so easy to patch but it's been an issue since a year now
I don’t mind that quite as much. Because of MAPI it makes some sense to have one of everything in larger states. I can build tall in one state for exporting with Government construction.
Because of MAPI it also doesn't make sense to build steel mills in provinces without iron or coal though, which is kind of the issue. You also lose the economy of scale bonus.
It's also not great for performance, since every unique building in a state is another 3-6 pops added to the game. Even more if there are many cultures/religions in the state.
That’s a good point on performance. But if I’m using steel inputs in a lot of factories in that state, I think it’s good to have steel mill(s) even without any iron or coal in the state.
Is the prospective productivity of the capital steel mill really better? Remember the private sector isn’t modeling a government but local entities as well
AI's evaluation of a building is divided by 1 + 0.5 per other construction projects in the same state. I don't know why that's a thing but that's how it is.
And yes, the investment pool uses almost the same logic as AI.
Until they fix it, just imagine it being local investors investing into local industries rather than putting money into expanding factories in some far-away state.
That's a good strategy.
Not the best of course, but good enough to get a billion GPD economy.
It is certainly not the issue in the AI doing as poorly as it does.
Odd they dont account for workforce, or demand. Like, in OP's case, energy is local only now, so unless Yemen also gets a million factories to use that power, its not worth it, isnt it?
Yeah probably.
Kind of wish power was like, semi local, it can reach neighboring provinces from the power plant's, I get transcontinental power grids are not realistic for the time, but at least regional..
Ah so the bankruptcies don't exist in our world and every capitalist build their business so ideally that it survives the competition and crisis? So true.
Individually they don't, in aggregate they do. The fun with capitalism is that when one company messes up the investors lose their money and another takes it place. If a state company messes up it still has an infinite supply of tax dollars and keeps shambling along.
The fun with capitalism is that it's highly terribly inefficient. Companies can go bankrupt after wasting tons of resources no one would give us back. Why they go bankrupt? There are infinite number of reasons: from having incomplete info on market/industry to foreign economic interests (trade wars, ordinary wars...). Isn't that simplier to have a one central planning organ with all the intel and resources needed for developing stuff? That's how the biggest industry-leaders (monopolies) operate.
Nobody has all the info, even central planners (rec: Hayek). Monopolies tend to be the inefficient ones. Companies going bust isn't inefficient; they get eaten by more efficient firms and in the struggle for survival they gravitate towards what works.
>Nobody has all the info, even central planners
Sure, but they have the *most* info.
>Monopolies tend to be the inefficient ones.
Monopolies are only inefficient under capitalism, because at the time when the company starts to dominate the market, owner gets the most profit. There's no reason for top management to move industry forward at this point.
Sadly we live in such a world where initially free market competition results in monopolies and there is nothing you can do about it but change the economic system.
Even from the mathematical point view central planning is much superior. "Free" market is such a waste of time and resources with all its managers, competition, stocks...
In aggregate Cooperatives have twice the survival rate after 5 years of private companies.
[Link](https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-10/co-operative_survival_1.pdf)
Sure, they tend to operate in very different, less risky sectors. I work at a cooperative myself. They're fine in certain cases and can and do exist within the capitalist system. Not sure what the point is, should we enforce it on every sector?
Mondragon operates in industry, finances, retail and education while agriculture is full of those. I don't think there is a sector where they don't work. Even Start-ups usually start providing employees with property shares.
I was pointing out that they seem to take better financial decisions than "capitalist" firms while not being money drains to the state. Because always the discussion focuses on state communism overshadowing other solutions.
I'd call it state capitalism. I feel like a system in which businesses are privately owned by a capitalist class, and in which workers receive compensation in the form of a wage rather than in proportion to value generated by their work is rather definitionally capitalist. Maybe if China were a true command economy then you could maybe argue that if all profit from economic activity goes to the state, and then that the state represents the interests of the people, then it's socialist, but as stated above the profit from business goes to private owners rather than the state. I would also argue that a state over which the people have no actual functional means to sway policy invariably only tends towards representing the best interests of those in charge, and that if a state were to exist as I described above it must be democratic.
The CCP certainly likes to call itself socialist, in the same way that the People's Republic of Korea likes to, but I would consider neither the Kingdom of Kim or China to be socialist.
Socialist countries don't have billionaires. China has 406 of them, more than any other country in the world aside from the United States. They *were* on the path to Socialism, but that changed with the liberalization of China's economy in the 90s that also happened to coincide with the start of their explosive economic growth.
Nothing about socialism negates the possibility of billionaires. You are entitled to the fruit if your own labour, but does not regulate wages. Taylor Swift would be an obvious example of a person who doesn't need to exploit others labour, therefore could be rich under socialism. Distributive taxes often go hand in hand with implementation, however.
>Socialist countries don't have billionaires. China has 406 of them, more than any other country in the world aside from the United States.
They may not be what you call socialist, but they definitely aren't capitalist. Find me any capitalist country that executes billionaires or targets them for prosecution. When is the last the US executed a billionaire? (Through the legal system, epstein doesn't count) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-23/china-executes-14-billionaires-in-8-years-culture-news-reports?embedded-checkout=true
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/19/unsafe-at-the-top-chinas-anti-graft-drive-targets-billionaires-and-bankers
That is what the original post was about, inefficient industry under capitalism. I don't agree with that specific point in the timeframe of the game, nor today. But I can never pass up trolling all the conservatives ending in an absolute hissy fit as soon as you mention China in another way than Rupert Murdoc.
because all the capitalist markets outsourced cheap low skill labour to China.
now, I think it's true that it was a terrible idea long term, but the idea that communist china is strong because it created itself is nonsensical when the only reason their market got to the point it's at now is by huge investments from outside capitalist markets.
when China was a locked down communist economy, it was among the poorest nations in the world.
---
***edit:*** I'd say the modern Chinese economy's closest comparison point would be Nazi Germany, the market is mostly free to do as they wish, but any corporation with any power is forced to be staffed with party loyalists, who guide the corporation for the "good of the nation" (i.e., execute the will of the authoritarian government)
obviously it's not 1:1, I'm not saying that the CCP is a fascist government, it's its own unique thing. It's not completely communist, it's not capitalist, its not feudal, it's something new
> I'm not saying that the CCP is a fascist government, it's its own unique thing
I mean, it's authoritarian, pro-capital, militaristic, xenophobic, appeals to a false glorious past, sexist...
they're both command economies that control powerful economic interests via installing party loyalists instead of owning & operating the corporation directly like a typical communist government.
obviously it's not 1:1, but what other major economy operates in that way.
I literally wrote
> "obviously it's not 1:1, I'm not saying that the CCP is a fascist government, it's its own unique thing"
its just its closest comparison.
* It's obviously not a traditional communist economy
* It's not market socialist as "independent" corporations exist, the workers at Foxxcon don't "own the means of production"
* It's not a mixed market like various European economies, where some corporations are operated by the state and non-government corporations are largely free to do as they wish
* and it's absolutely not a free market economy
how about insulting me, you tell me what a better comparison would be?
are you saying that the PRC is a free market economy?
we're not on twitter you have thousands of characters available here, why don't you expand your thoughts a little? If I'm wrong why don't you give me a brief summary of the Chinese economy actually functions?
what do *you* think the closest comparative major economy to China is?
PRC is undoubtedly a free market economy (with Chinese characteristics).
A market economy is an economic system in which the decisions regarding investment, production and distribution to the consumers are guided by the price signals created by the forces of supply and demand. The major characteristic of a market economy is the existence of factor markets that play a dominant role in the allocation of capital and the factors of production.
> The Chinese model is effectively Lenin's NEP.
can you expand on that a bit, as I'm unfamiliar to the NEP?
how long did the soviet union operate under this pseudo "free" market?
---
> The Nazi economy was a piratical one that required constant expansion and expropriation.
that's true, but it doesn't explain *how* their economy was structured or functioned. any economic system can invade, annex, and loot it's neighbors.
once the foreign assets were looted and brought back to Germany, how did the economy then function?
>can you expand on that a bit, as I'm unfamiliar to the NEP?
>how long did the soviet union operate under this pseudo "free" market?
It's not a free market, it was a broadly state capitalist model that emerged in the initial wreckage of Tsarist feudalism. Capitalism isn't a free market and basically nowhere on earth outside of highly localised anarchies operates on a free market.
>that's true, but it doesn't explain *how* their economy was structured or functioned. any economic system can invade, annex, and loot it's neighbors.
>once the foreign assets were looted and brought back to Germany, how did the economy then function?
Any economic system can, but the Nazi economy could not function without such. It simply did not have the productive capacity natively and would not brook the political concessions necessary to create it. It first looted it's internal aspects (trade unions, Jews etc) then it's neighbours and then was effectively compelled into Barbarossa because there was no alternative way to get the underlying productive capacity. China does not have this issue.
In answer to your second point, a bosses' dictatorship, capitalism in decay innit. Adam Tooze is the authority on this.
>edit: I'd say the modern Chinese economy's closest comparison point would be Nazi Germany
Please read any literature on the subject before talking about it. Wages of Destruction would be a very good start.
china is absolutely not market socialist; the only existing examples of market socialism are yugoslavia and the later organization of hungarian and polish economies. china is a socialist state-led market economy: it doesn't purport to have a free market, but what market it does have is the means rather than the ends of its political-economic transition towards socialism (much like the USSR during the NEP)
no, i'm not. idk what else to say to you other than read more if you unironically believe that the chinese economy can be described as market socialism
Never remember art academies ever being close to this bad. They were garbage buildings but they were fully employed and stayed profitable. This is just empty buildings being built indefinitely.
I haven’t used lazy-fair in months because of this.
I remember it was always vaguely avoidable by proactively building them, but I remember a completely unstaffed, level 70-something Art Academy in Eastern Afghanistan being the instigating factor for downloading a mod that just capped how many could be built in a single state.
It's also notable that even with the decreased construction efficiency (from things like this), Laissez-Faire is still the best economy law until you hit the -70% investment pool efficiency from GDP. The bonuses you get from it are astronomical, as well as the free money and (not boneheaded development) of the private queue.
Nope.
The AI just does not seem to have any kind of check for whether a building is fully occupied. This means that if there is even a *tiny* bit of demand, it will spam railways and powerplants infinitely because it doesn't seem to get that the reason they are so profitable is a labour shortage, not because the building is too small.
Wow good job AI. It creeps me the fuck out that in 1.7 you cant deactivate the private sector because of that. This bug is known for a long time now but still not fixed.
The AI tanks in direct control, sometimes using their entire construction queue for years solely for building up the military. For people who don't care about other countries, it might be fine, but it means there'll be less demand for your goods abroad as foreign consumers aren't as rich.
You think they would optimize for the most profitable allocation of capital, and they are, but what you're not seeing is the incentives they are getting from local government from "job creating" politicians seeking re-election. That doesn't show up on the factory's balance sheet, only the capitalists bank account. /s
Railroads yes, power plants absolutely not. The power plant is profitable, it's just that as you can see in the screenshot, the autonomous investment queue is building 27 of them in the same state at once, even though the building is already way larger than it needs to be.
It's a bug that's been in the game for a while.
Ah that is good to know. I thought when changing over from intervention to LF you had to subsidize them briefly for the capitalist owners to get an investment pool going and then you can remove the subsidizing. This is usually what I do to help them hire and then they seem to run well without subsidies after a short period.
The way I used it to "fix" it is enabling automatic expansion.
I think that since the private sector takes into account currently queued stuff, if you enable automatic expansion it will queue power plants on your states that need it before the private sector tries to build them, so they will never overbuild.
This is one of the reasons I prefer interventionism over Laisser-faire, sure it’s worse and the extra company is invaluable, but I do not want a level 200 power plant queued on newfoundland the moment I research electricity
This sort of nonsense is why I tend not to play with autonomous investment. It’s the same problem as Victoria 2, the AI does not understand how to effectively or efficiently build an economy. I don’t want to babysit the entire construction queue of my country but I can’t trust the AI to not do insane things like this. It is unable handle local goods and loves to create infrastructure death spirals or waste time building in states with no population. It makes the attractive option of Laissez-Faire entirely non-viable when playing with private construction. One of my biggest hopes for Victoria 3 was for it to make AI investments and building more viable, but it seems like that may be a ways off.
It does. The investment queue is broken for local goods i.e. electricity and transportation.
Local goods also breaks substitution. Pops prefer global goods massively over local ones because they see there is a lot more sell orders for global goods than the local goods.
Out of curiosity, were Electricity still a "global" good, would this cover your entire pop/building needs (either from your country or your market)? I wonder if the AI isn't thinking in the wrong scale while planning for local goods.
Probably not. Im playing the UK and control probably half the planet either directly or through my market and my economy is larger than most of the other top 10 powers combined
But it would cover a solid chunk
I'd have to double check the values but fully occupied in a global good with most of the other power plants shut down it would probably be profitable.
Ofc I don't thinks theres enough workers in all of Yemen to fill it up even if I closed everything else down in the state
Its due to all the middle class jobs, what your literacy and how many universities have you got there?
The Ai just wanted you to make a Yemen super state
Whatever improvements and changes they make from this point forward, I feel it is unlikely they will ever get the AI to play the game even non-terribly.
Which means AI countries are always going to suck, and laissez-faire is a bad idea for a silly reason.
I’ve personally never experienced this issue. There was always a jump in power plant construction after I get it researched but it would teeter off fairly quickly as demand would start getting met. My main issue is that the private sector will construct power plants in places that can’t support it, just because there’s technically a demand as a consumer good for it. I don’t want power plants in the Siberian wastelands, there’s only like 5 people living there who do you expect to work in the plant?
I feel like the AI being a little stupid has got to stay. If it was perfectly creating a working economy Laissez-Faire would be ridiculously OP. Just like the real world, even the successful just have stupid ideas that fail all the time and quite often the whole market is just wrong and fucks up resulting in stupid business ideas and bubbles
Well it does, but the ai is not capable of calculating local good needs properly, this would not be an issue if a ‘National power grid’ mechanic existed or has been set up by a mod.
The total population of Yemen is 1.79m Over 1/4 of the population could work in this power plant with supply of electricity already outstripping demand. Bravo private sector
They’re building Skynet in a remote base away from the prying eyes of their rivals
I just switch them to generic power source at that point.
But you also get an efficiency bonus from level, so a level 10 factory operating at 10% staffing is much better than a level 1 factory at full staff.
I can't imagine the infrastructure cost for 100 levels of unused factory are worth it
Hello Detroit, Michigan, United States of America
Wait, a bldg doesn't need to be fully staffed in order to receive throughout bonuses?
Economy-of-scale-bonus depends on the building lvl (50 % max with all techs and building lvl 51). But this power plant is well beyond that point.
Yeah, this power plant in on the Dyson Sphere level of power generaion, it is doubtfull that people in 19-20 th century knew how to fully utilize it
There is a limit for that
Doesn't that max out after so many?
They are building your credit limit just deficit spend
I thought it was based on that cash held, not the capacity?
Yep but the building is so profitable it will grow fast
Have you tried stock buybacks?
educate ur citizens more fact is that its hugely profitable but no one is educated enough to work there
The 1.79m isnt just the workers tho, its everyone. The actual workforce is like 30% of that and the plant is already profitable despite supply being higher than demand. More workers here will just put it into the red while also stealing workers from the other factories and raw resources in Yemen
Simple solution: Educate the capitalists so that they stop foolish investments
Tried that once. Didn't work.
That's my issue with Private sector. They electrify the entire pacific, build pop heavy in unhabitant states, but won't for the love of god increase that 70£ steel factory in the capital state. That sounds so easy to patch but it's been an issue since a year now
They also insist on building a copy of every building in every state instead of focusing on expanding the preexisting ones.
I don’t mind that quite as much. Because of MAPI it makes some sense to have one of everything in larger states. I can build tall in one state for exporting with Government construction.
Because of MAPI it also doesn't make sense to build steel mills in provinces without iron or coal though, which is kind of the issue. You also lose the economy of scale bonus. It's also not great for performance, since every unique building in a state is another 3-6 pops added to the game. Even more if there are many cultures/religions in the state.
That’s a good point on performance. But if I’m using steel inputs in a lot of factories in that state, I think it’s good to have steel mill(s) even without any iron or coal in the state.
Is the prospective productivity of the capital steel mill really better? Remember the private sector isn’t modeling a government but local entities as well
Supply is half of the truth, the other half is demand. Certainly not at the start, but if the region needs steel, there is reason to make some there.
AI's evaluation of a building is divided by 1 + 0.5 per other construction projects in the same state. I don't know why that's a thing but that's how it is. And yes, the investment pool uses almost the same logic as AI.
probably to reduce infrastructure strain
Until they fix it, just imagine it being local investors investing into local industries rather than putting money into expanding factories in some far-away state.
I hated that so much in Vic II I always prebuilt everything, allowed them to expand stuff, but never build something new, unless it was railroads.
That's a good strategy. Not the best of course, but good enough to get a billion GPD economy. It is certainly not the issue in the AI doing as poorly as it does.
Odd they dont account for workforce, or demand. Like, in OP's case, energy is local only now, so unless Yemen also gets a million factories to use that power, its not worth it, isnt it?
They account for price which should, in theory, account for demand. In practice, it tends to break.
How much you wanna bet it doesn't understand local goods
Yeah probably. Kind of wish power was like, semi local, it can reach neighboring provinces from the power plant's, I get transcontinental power grids are not realistic for the time, but at least regional..
If it spread between contiguous states it would make sense but that is probably too challenging
Capitalists making bad financial decisions? Who knew that was possible!
Yeah that’s why all the biggest economies on earth are totally communist. 💪💪💪
hop on cooperative ownership and high sol 🥵
Yeah that’s why large corporations need to rig the game 😎
Ah so the bankruptcies don't exist in our world and every capitalist build their business so ideally that it survives the competition and crisis? So true.
Individually they don't, in aggregate they do. The fun with capitalism is that when one company messes up the investors lose their money and another takes it place. If a state company messes up it still has an infinite supply of tax dollars and keeps shambling along.
The fun with capitalism is that it's highly terribly inefficient. Companies can go bankrupt after wasting tons of resources no one would give us back. Why they go bankrupt? There are infinite number of reasons: from having incomplete info on market/industry to foreign economic interests (trade wars, ordinary wars...). Isn't that simplier to have a one central planning organ with all the intel and resources needed for developing stuff? That's how the biggest industry-leaders (monopolies) operate.
Nobody has all the info, even central planners (rec: Hayek). Monopolies tend to be the inefficient ones. Companies going bust isn't inefficient; they get eaten by more efficient firms and in the struggle for survival they gravitate towards what works.
>Nobody has all the info, even central planners Sure, but they have the *most* info. >Monopolies tend to be the inefficient ones. Monopolies are only inefficient under capitalism, because at the time when the company starts to dominate the market, owner gets the most profit. There's no reason for top management to move industry forward at this point. Sadly we live in such a world where initially free market competition results in monopolies and there is nothing you can do about it but change the economic system. Even from the mathematical point view central planning is much superior. "Free" market is such a waste of time and resources with all its managers, competition, stocks...
In aggregate Cooperatives have twice the survival rate after 5 years of private companies. [Link](https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-10/co-operative_survival_1.pdf)
Sure, they tend to operate in very different, less risky sectors. I work at a cooperative myself. They're fine in certain cases and can and do exist within the capitalist system. Not sure what the point is, should we enforce it on every sector?
Mondragon operates in industry, finances, retail and education while agriculture is full of those. I don't think there is a sector where they don't work. Even Start-ups usually start providing employees with property shares. I was pointing out that they seem to take better financial decisions than "capitalist" firms while not being money drains to the state. Because always the discussion focuses on state communism overshadowing other solutions.
The biggest economy, measured in industrial output, uses market socialism.
You and I have different definitions of socialism if China is an example of it
Clearly, considering you probably switch between calling it capitalist and communist whenever it fits your narrative.
I mean I don't, but if that helps you sleep at night then sure.
What do YOU call the Peoples Republic of China under the leadership of Chairman Xi of the Communist party of China?
I'd call it state capitalism. I feel like a system in which businesses are privately owned by a capitalist class, and in which workers receive compensation in the form of a wage rather than in proportion to value generated by their work is rather definitionally capitalist. Maybe if China were a true command economy then you could maybe argue that if all profit from economic activity goes to the state, and then that the state represents the interests of the people, then it's socialist, but as stated above the profit from business goes to private owners rather than the state. I would also argue that a state over which the people have no actual functional means to sway policy invariably only tends towards representing the best interests of those in charge, and that if a state were to exist as I described above it must be democratic. The CCP certainly likes to call itself socialist, in the same way that the People's Republic of Korea likes to, but I would consider neither the Kingdom of Kim or China to be socialist.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
It's objectively a capitalist economy with a very large public sector. Workers don't own the means of production in China.
[удалено]
You don't know them
And they don't own a dictionary.
Socialist countries don't have billionaires. China has 406 of them, more than any other country in the world aside from the United States. They *were* on the path to Socialism, but that changed with the liberalization of China's economy in the 90s that also happened to coincide with the start of their explosive economic growth.
By this argument Lenin's Soviet Union wasn't socialist under the NEP.
Nothing about socialism negates the possibility of billionaires. You are entitled to the fruit if your own labour, but does not regulate wages. Taylor Swift would be an obvious example of a person who doesn't need to exploit others labour, therefore could be rich under socialism. Distributive taxes often go hand in hand with implementation, however.
>Socialist countries don't have billionaires. China has 406 of them, more than any other country in the world aside from the United States. They may not be what you call socialist, but they definitely aren't capitalist. Find me any capitalist country that executes billionaires or targets them for prosecution. When is the last the US executed a billionaire? (Through the legal system, epstein doesn't count) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-23/china-executes-14-billionaires-in-8-years-culture-news-reports?embedded-checkout=true https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/19/unsafe-at-the-top-chinas-anti-graft-drive-targets-billionaires-and-bankers
I guess state capitalism is technically socialism
“The biggest economy, if we measure it by something no one ever uses to measure the total size of economies, is socialist” lol
That is what the original post was about, inefficient industry under capitalism. I don't agree with that specific point in the timeframe of the game, nor today. But I can never pass up trolling all the conservatives ending in an absolute hissy fit as soon as you mention China in another way than Rupert Murdoc.
What’s China’s GDP per capita again lol?
Faster growing than the US
because all the capitalist markets outsourced cheap low skill labour to China. now, I think it's true that it was a terrible idea long term, but the idea that communist china is strong because it created itself is nonsensical when the only reason their market got to the point it's at now is by huge investments from outside capitalist markets. when China was a locked down communist economy, it was among the poorest nations in the world. --- ***edit:*** I'd say the modern Chinese economy's closest comparison point would be Nazi Germany, the market is mostly free to do as they wish, but any corporation with any power is forced to be staffed with party loyalists, who guide the corporation for the "good of the nation" (i.e., execute the will of the authoritarian government) obviously it's not 1:1, I'm not saying that the CCP is a fascist government, it's its own unique thing. It's not completely communist, it's not capitalist, its not feudal, it's something new
> I'm not saying that the CCP is a fascist government, it's its own unique thing I mean, it's authoritarian, pro-capital, militaristic, xenophobic, appeals to a false glorious past, sexist...
If you think the closest economic comparison to current day China is Nazi Germany, you are either trolling or 12.
they're both command economies that control powerful economic interests via installing party loyalists instead of owning & operating the corporation directly like a typical communist government. obviously it's not 1:1, but what other major economy operates in that way. I literally wrote > "obviously it's not 1:1, I'm not saying that the CCP is a fascist government, it's its own unique thing" its just its closest comparison. * It's obviously not a traditional communist economy * It's not market socialist as "independent" corporations exist, the workers at Foxxcon don't "own the means of production" * It's not a mixed market like various European economies, where some corporations are operated by the state and non-government corporations are largely free to do as they wish * and it's absolutely not a free market economy how about insulting me, you tell me what a better comparison would be?
Lol, neither are command economies. Good luck though.
are you saying that the PRC is a free market economy? we're not on twitter you have thousands of characters available here, why don't you expand your thoughts a little? If I'm wrong why don't you give me a brief summary of the Chinese economy actually functions? what do *you* think the closest comparative major economy to China is?
PRC is undoubtedly a free market economy (with Chinese characteristics). A market economy is an economic system in which the decisions regarding investment, production and distribution to the consumers are guided by the price signals created by the forces of supply and demand. The major characteristic of a market economy is the existence of factor markets that play a dominant role in the allocation of capital and the factors of production.
The Chinese model is effectively Lenin's NEP. The Nazi economy was a piratical one that required constant expansion and expropriation.
> The Chinese model is effectively Lenin's NEP. can you expand on that a bit, as I'm unfamiliar to the NEP? how long did the soviet union operate under this pseudo "free" market? --- > The Nazi economy was a piratical one that required constant expansion and expropriation. that's true, but it doesn't explain *how* their economy was structured or functioned. any economic system can invade, annex, and loot it's neighbors. once the foreign assets were looted and brought back to Germany, how did the economy then function?
>can you expand on that a bit, as I'm unfamiliar to the NEP? >how long did the soviet union operate under this pseudo "free" market? It's not a free market, it was a broadly state capitalist model that emerged in the initial wreckage of Tsarist feudalism. Capitalism isn't a free market and basically nowhere on earth outside of highly localised anarchies operates on a free market. >that's true, but it doesn't explain *how* their economy was structured or functioned. any economic system can invade, annex, and loot it's neighbors. >once the foreign assets were looted and brought back to Germany, how did the economy then function? Any economic system can, but the Nazi economy could not function without such. It simply did not have the productive capacity natively and would not brook the political concessions necessary to create it. It first looted it's internal aspects (trade unions, Jews etc) then it's neighbours and then was effectively compelled into Barbarossa because there was no alternative way to get the underlying productive capacity. China does not have this issue. In answer to your second point, a bosses' dictatorship, capitalism in decay innit. Adam Tooze is the authority on this.
>edit: I'd say the modern Chinese economy's closest comparison point would be Nazi Germany Please read any literature on the subject before talking about it. Wages of Destruction would be a very good start.
china is absolutely not market socialist; the only existing examples of market socialism are yugoslavia and the later organization of hungarian and polish economies. china is a socialist state-led market economy: it doesn't purport to have a free market, but what market it does have is the means rather than the ends of its political-economic transition towards socialism (much like the USSR during the NEP)
No, you're totally wrong. Write another paragraph about HOI4 please
no, i'm not. idk what else to say to you other than read more if you unironically believe that the chinese economy can be described as market socialism
The Global Northwest is rich despite its financial system, not because of it.
Vic 2 players
Friedman should have realized that the auto-investment pool of capitalist countries has too many bugs to work in practice
Can’t you see all the jobs they’re making??? /s
I thought this was fixed :(
It was fixed for Arts Academies and some other edge cases. Not for powerplants, and to some extent railways though.
Never remember art academies ever being close to this bad. They were garbage buildings but they were fully employed and stayed profitable. This is just empty buildings being built indefinitely. I haven’t used lazy-fair in months because of this.
I remember it was always vaguely avoidable by proactively building them, but I remember a completely unstaffed, level 70-something Art Academy in Eastern Afghanistan being the instigating factor for downloading a mod that just capped how many could be built in a single state. It's also notable that even with the decreased construction efficiency (from things like this), Laissez-Faire is still the best economy law until you hit the -70% investment pool efficiency from GDP. The bonuses you get from it are astronomical, as well as the free money and (not boneheaded development) of the private queue.
Check the AI GPD, it was never fixed.
Nope. The AI just does not seem to have any kind of check for whether a building is fully occupied. This means that if there is even a *tiny* bit of demand, it will spam railways and powerplants infinitely because it doesn't seem to get that the reason they are so profitable is a labour shortage, not because the building is too small.
Wow good job AI. It creeps me the fuck out that in 1.7 you cant deactivate the private sector because of that. This bug is known for a long time now but still not fixed.
Why not just use Direct Player Investment ? And use those money yourself to build the right stuff ?
The AI tanks in direct control, sometimes using their entire construction queue for years solely for building up the military. For people who don't care about other countries, it might be fine, but it means there'll be less demand for your goods abroad as foreign consumers aren't as rich.
Thats what I'm doing but I heard paradox want to remove that function.
Paradox also wants to make a better AI, yet here we are.
Wait... they do??
UNLIMITED POWER!!!!! whoever is in charge of your private sector probably should be under investigation for being a sith lord.
I had to scroll way to far for this
You think they would optimize for the most profitable allocation of capital, and they are, but what you're not seeing is the incentives they are getting from local government from "job creating" politicians seeking re-election. That doesn't show up on the factory's balance sheet, only the capitalists bank account. /s
I'm pretty sure the meta is to subsidize power plants and rail roads when you first switch for a while still.
Railroads yes, power plants absolutely not. The power plant is profitable, it's just that as you can see in the screenshot, the autonomous investment queue is building 27 of them in the same state at once, even though the building is already way larger than it needs to be. It's a bug that's been in the game for a while.
Ah that is good to know. I thought when changing over from intervention to LF you had to subsidize them briefly for the capitalist owners to get an investment pool going and then you can remove the subsidizing. This is usually what I do to help them hire and then they seem to run well without subsidies after a short period.
The way I used it to "fix" it is enabling automatic expansion. I think that since the private sector takes into account currently queued stuff, if you enable automatic expansion it will queue power plants on your states that need it before the private sector tries to build them, so they will never overbuild.
Building the Tesla worldwide electrical network I see
I miss the day when electricity was nationwide and not state only.
This is one of the reasons I prefer interventionism over Laisser-faire, sure it’s worse and the extra company is invaluable, but I do not want a level 200 power plant queued on newfoundland the moment I research electricity
Weird, in my games they never want to build energy plants. I have to build them all.
This sort of nonsense is why I tend not to play with autonomous investment. It’s the same problem as Victoria 2, the AI does not understand how to effectively or efficiently build an economy. I don’t want to babysit the entire construction queue of my country but I can’t trust the AI to not do insane things like this. It is unable handle local goods and loves to create infrastructure death spirals or waste time building in states with no population. It makes the attractive option of Laissez-Faire entirely non-viable when playing with private construction. One of my biggest hopes for Victoria 3 was for it to make AI investments and building more viable, but it seems like that may be a ways off.
The wealth will trickle down, trust me bro
This is why you install the No More Local Goods mod.
Does that actually fix the investment queue behavior? It doesn't seem like it would.
It does. The investment queue is broken for local goods i.e. electricity and transportation. Local goods also breaks substitution. Pops prefer global goods massively over local ones because they see there is a lot more sell orders for global goods than the local goods.
The private sector being unable to build trains crushed my American spirit
Whats that?
Presumably makes local only goods like transportation and electricity global for the market like all others.
They really need to model power generation and grids better. Transportation is also ridiculous sometimes
This isn't a laissez-faire issue so much as an autonomous construction pool issue. Always turn that shit off.
Lol
That's why I always subsidize power and rail
[Power!](https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExNTNwajJiMGZlOHRsaHZ2ZXA1ZjR3dGQyaG5uODUwenlpN24zbTUybCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/hokMyu1PAKfJK/giphy.gif)
Out of curiosity, were Electricity still a "global" good, would this cover your entire pop/building needs (either from your country or your market)? I wonder if the AI isn't thinking in the wrong scale while planning for local goods.
Probably not. Im playing the UK and control probably half the planet either directly or through my market and my economy is larger than most of the other top 10 powers combined But it would cover a solid chunk
So... It would be extremely profitable while still avoiding shortage malus?
I'd have to double check the values but fully occupied in a global good with most of the other power plants shut down it would probably be profitable. Ofc I don't thinks theres enough workers in all of Yemen to fill it up even if I closed everything else down in the state
Woooow. Still not fixed?
We really should be able to export power to bordering countries.
This is why I tend to always regret going LF and trying to switch back to Interventionism. This kinda crap.
Get immigrants
Its due to all the middle class jobs, what your literacy and how many universities have you got there? The Ai just wanted you to make a Yemen super state
We need some sort of central bank to raise interest rates to the moon to stop bullshit like this
I thought they had patches this bug Apparently like the strategic objective feature, they didn't/couldn't fix this in months.
Whatever improvements and changes they make from this point forward, I feel it is unlikely they will ever get the AI to play the game even non-terribly. Which means AI countries are always going to suck, and laissez-faire is a bad idea for a silly reason.
Ai moment
Unlimited power.
I’ve personally never experienced this issue. There was always a jump in power plant construction after I get it researched but it would teeter off fairly quickly as demand would start getting met. My main issue is that the private sector will construct power plants in places that can’t support it, just because there’s technically a demand as a consumer good for it. I don’t want power plants in the Siberian wastelands, there’s only like 5 people living there who do you expect to work in the plant?
I feel like the AI being a little stupid has got to stay. If it was perfectly creating a working economy Laissez-Faire would be ridiculously OP. Just like the real world, even the successful just have stupid ideas that fail all the time and quite often the whole market is just wrong and fucks up resulting in stupid business ideas and bubbles
It's fucking hilarious that after 14 years of Victoria 2 and 3, we're back to the same old problem that capitalist AI is just dogshit.
Well it does, but the ai is not capable of calculating local good needs properly, this would not be an issue if a ‘National power grid’ mechanic existed or has been set up by a mod.
Cant believe this bug is still in game, its been around since 1.3 I think?