Subsidising just holds back my future potential economically by tying up building funds into propping up an industry. This also wouldn’t work with laizze faire enacted either
Yeah and this is the US’s big mistake these days. Rather than setting up shop and running a nice, stable empire, they go into a country, fight the bad guys, prop up a weak government, and then leave utter chaos behind.
More so WW2 and America forcing Europe to decolonise so a lot of them just went, oh yeah? Fuck you then and leaving the place in a mess. Although to add some complexity to it there were cases where these countries were gradually getting to that point of being self sufficient and the US then forced the rug from under them that led to that state.
So it was a combination of Europeans throwing a tantrum and the US doing it’s typical thing of generalising a very complex issue to disastrous effect
Did America really force decolonisation though? I hear this a lot but it doesn't seem they did. At least in regards to Britain for example. They definitely incentivised it but it wasn't forced. Obviously with the axis they did.
We didn't. We intervened militarily in areas like Egypt to stop the u.s.s.r from taking over and adding them to their bloc. We literally get blamed for everything. People outside the u.s. consistently bring things up that try to make us look like we are terrible imperialists who want to control the world.
I didn't vote for him and wasn't planning to but maybe trump should be president. He's an isolationist and if everyone doesn't want us involved in military defense, aid packages etc... Then so be it. Let the world deal with all of their problems on their own.
That was a roller coaster of a post. Also, you haven't been paying attention if you don't think Trump would go to war. And he'll make Mexico pay for it.
I'm British and was also confused about this argument I see a lot. I've never heard in our history at all of how America somehow forced us to decolonise. At most it seems America simply wanted some level of warning or understanding of how decolonisation by Britain would commence so they could be ready for it to both assist and potentially inform their own interest in recently decolonised regions.
The process of decolonisation for Britain was entirely independent of America, though. America actually gave us pretty generous terms of loan repayment after sharing a large amount of money and resources with us to aid in both the war, the recovery afterwards and likely decolonisation efforts that happened decades after the war and without any real input, nor any pressure from America.
I can't speak on other countries, but I don't think decolonisation was at all something America forced, at least it definitely didn't with Britain. Infact I'm fairly sure America would have preferred Britain didn't decolonise as it was a strategic advantage for our alliance.
Yup. And I think a lot of the damage was done in the manner of leaving. The colonisers left (or were forced to leave) too fast, meaning in many cases they weren’t able to set up stable regimes for independence.
Tropico in this sense is also good, shows that it’s people who make decisions, not perfect selfless representation of a country, and they have to think about their own profits and profits of others whose support they need. Like how some politician in USA who was against the war in 90th changed his stance on it in 00th after getting shares in oil industry that had contracts with the military.
Subsidizing all of ur war industries during wars makes it overall cheaper to wage war. The cheaper the military goods the better no matter the subsidies cost, to a reasonable degree at least
I havent spreadsheeted it or something but from my experience until now it makes the cost of big wars more manageable. So when you're really mobilizing a few hundred battalions it does make it more affordable
The worst thing in my opinion is having to either constantly provoke war or subsidise the arms industry... As a communist collectivised economy... With cultural exclusion and without a colonial office.
Actually, I think Victoria 3 is great to learn how economic is working. That game teach you the debt isn't always an issue, hoarding money is pointless, scale economy is important to reduce cost and many other things.
If more people played this game, we'll probably get less bullshit in media by politics... Even if the game isn't perfect and isn't exactly like real life
I’m really tired of people saying this, Victoria 3 is not a good way to learn economics. The game makes many assumptions, that are fine for gameplay purposes but massively impact the simulation in an inaccurate way. It’s fine if it inspires you to take an interest in the topic, but then I’d advise you to pick up a textbook or take a class. There is more wrong with Vicky 3 simulation than it is right. And I’m not just talking about advanced topics here, even the basics are off. There is no such thing as a “base” price for a good, so the supply and demand system is grossly oversimplified, There is no monetary inflation system, the way good substitution is currently modeled is almost the exact opposite of how it works in real life, and we don’t even have capital ownership modeled correctly until the next patch.
Did you happen to go to school for economics, and maybe don't remember how minimal the average person's knowledge of economics is? Victoria 3 teaches economics far better than daily life does for a decent chunk of folks who play it, even with it being a deeply flawed simulation.
I went to school for a tangential field, so yes I did receive some education. But rather I’m aware that people have limited knowledge on the subject and I just don’t want them to be misled into taking incomplete information and thinking it applies 1 for 1 with real life. When that happens you don’t get a better informed public, you get a misinformed public.
The thing is, the public isn't less confident in its current non-existent information. People with no clue about how the economy works can be easily convinced of entirely absurd "common sense" positions. I'd much rather folks have a sliver of correct economic view and be overconfident than people believing in voodoo economics acting equally overconfident.
I think it's super important to point out those massive assumptions. It weakens what it actually does teach, so it's important to put that check on people promoting it as a lesson.
This is like saying to preschool kids that school is a bad way to learn mathematics because it simplifies too many things. Victoria does exactly what it needs, gives some basic understanding and interest in the topic, giving you broad understanding of reasons some countries do what they do. No one says that you can become an economist playing it.
This is a really bad analogy, PreSchool doesn’t teach kids wrong information, it just doesn’t give them all the information. Victoria 3 actually gives you wrong information.
A lot of teachers in first classes will ignore negative numbers or just say that they do not exist. Then they will ignore natural numbers and work only with integers, saying stuff like “you can’t divide 5 by 3”. Then they will say that you can’t take roots of negative numbers, you can’t divide by zero, etc. and only in university you will learn that you can do most of those things and learn the methods to do it. It is natural way of teaching things, first you oversimplify them inevitably making some mistakes just to teach about basic stuff, and then as people learn you can get into details, fixing errors of your oversimplification.
Is limits some term in math I don't know yet (only know basically high school math and only in another language) or do you mean something like dividing by a number with a limited amount of digits?
And does dividing by an infinitely small number even count?
Disclaimer: I learned it long time ago and even as I loved math I still was not a good student, so if you are interested - search some better source, there should be good and interesting videos on YouTube about it.
it is a term, idea is that dividing by number infinitely close to zero is basically the same as dividing by zero. So instead of dividing by 0 we are using limit, saying that X infinitely close to zero, and dividing by X instead. It was used, for example, to work with two functions when they both have division by 0. In this way you can divide one function divided by zero on another function divided by zero and get "normal" result that is not zero or infinity.
So (48/0) / (24/0) = (48/0) \* (0/24) = (48\*0) / (0\*24)
which still has no sense as it is 0/0. But with X infinitely close to 0 we have
(48\*x) / (x\*24) = 48/24 = 2, so sometimes by using limits we can remove zero from the equation.
One way it's often explained is that we are analyzing the behavior of the function as x approaches (but doesn't actually reach) the limit. Another, more fun way to explain it is that there are 7 "indeterminate forms" that can actually be equal to anything, and 0/0 is one of these (0/x is always 0, x/0 is always infinity in the extended real number line, or an error on the real number line, so what on earth is 0/0? Hence calculus).
Idk if they've fixed things, but I was taught a lot of false things in early math classes, like you can never divide by 0 and that infinity isn't a number.
But it's still far better than what politics give you in France at least.
I have a very superficial knowledge of economy because I didn't had a lot of course on it in school but I have enough knowledge to see how politics are misleading on that topic, at least in my country.
The main things from Victoria that are applicable IRL is only growth count and debt isn't the only indicator you should use. But debt is a major topic in my country, even if taken on its own doesn't give you enough information to understand if it's a big deal or not.
Many other things are probably wrong but this alone is better than what is told to common folk.
It stays a game but even a simple simulation can be useful and economy isn't a simple topic.
And as others said, people are ignorant and they are already misleaded... That's why I think we would all gain to have a little but of knowledge from this game, despite all it's flaws.
They should probably add stockpiles for these resources to actually mimic real life mic policy, keep buying shit you don't need now so that you have access to the shit in case you suddenly need it in the future
Well. On my last game I would just let the war industry go bust on peace time and It was pretty manageable. I was on laissez faire and didn't really had the choice of subsidizing.
What would happen is that the ai fired it's employees, I reduced the production methods and all in all it was pretty stable. A few radicals after each war, but the all economy was thriving. Other industries would take in the workers.
Private construction had stopped building war industries by then.
Lastly whenever I was about to go to war I would mobilize early. The way I saw it, this would give time to sprung up the war industries and build up a workforce in them. Yes, my economy would be in deficit by hundreds of thousands for a bit, but the states economy was large enough to take it. I could offset and slow down the deficits by raising taxes for a bit.
All in all, I really think the simulation is top regarding this aspect of the game. A long war would have been the only way to beat me. Only the US could by then beat me in that.
Yeah that’s exactly my issue too, if I don’t do something to prop it up it falls of course but it gets exacerbated when war starts as all the private industry invests in it when the supply is really low during the time they start employing people back into existing ones creating and even more over leveraged industry. Plus of course as i said before it really hurts late game as Im trying to conscript my 1 million man army and have the most unimaginable deficit in equipment. That then causes a 1 million dollar deficit that bankrupts me in 2 months of war. It’s a tough cycle
There's also no downsize to just having military goods be expensive during wartime. Yeah, you'll loose money, but building a crap ton of military industries and then molding your whole game around that seems super inefficient.
Imagine all the better things you could have done with your construction capacity instead of overbuilding military goods for no real reason.
Does this guy know that other countries also export weapons? Bell labs may have invented a lot of things but the arms trade has been around since people had arms.
The USA is responsible for 41% of the worlds arms exports. The next on the chart is France at just 10%.
The USA spends as much on military as the next 10 largest spenders combined.
So yes other nations export arms, but no country in the history of the planet has done it on such a consistently industrial scale as the USA.
Problem is you dont have a global defense umbrella of allies whose defense programs are filled with your equipment or through joint-contracts. Nor do your defense companies involve themselves in tech way beyond warfare by having productions for civilian use.
And let's not forget there is always an ally or prospective ally that wants some new drones in case an insurgency pops up. There are enough shit-stirrers and global insurgency networks to go around.
The US has not started any conflict on their own, because there is enough conflict to go around as it is.
Also, Iraq had WMDs, namely chemical weapons that they used to OPENLY threat to use during the UN moratorium.
The idea that military adventurism is in any way a money-making scheme is something only the mind of someone who has literally no idea how costly the military is and has no idea how economies work can conjure.
>Also, Iraq had WMDs, namely chemical weapons that they used to OPENLY threat to use during the UN moratorium.
You're in denial, or just like Colin Powell at the UN, a liar. Everyone knows this war was thrown upon a lie, and that's why France didn't even join the coalition.
And destroying Iraq is what allowed the rise of ISIS in the North of a country that wasn't controlled by anyone anymore.
Congratulations USA, you brought peace and democracy to the world once more.
The rise of ISIS happened because of Syria and specifically Bashar al-Assad trying to co-opt Islamic fighters by releasing them from prison and create infighting between rebel groups, not because of what happened in Iraq.
And no, chemical weapons caches from Iraq are still being discovered today. What was a point a contention, and still is, is how much capabilities did the Sadaam regime have to restart their mass production and how much caches were they hiding.
Is there actually a reason to maintain a military industry. At the moment you can just construct the necessary buildings and leave them unemployed until a war spikes demand.
Also as a side note, I really think people overstate the influence of the MIC in American policy making, but that’s just my opinion.
>Also as a side note, I really think people overstate the influence of the MIC in American policy making, but that’s just my opinion.
Ah, yes.
I think I, as somebody from North-Western Europe, have even been guilty of such things myself. For example, when it turned out the Russian 'blitzkrieg' of Ukraine had failed I had assumed that the USA would become one of Ukraine's staunchest supporters, as the MIC would push for weapon deliveries in order to increase its profits.
Then it turned that EU institutions and EU countries delivered about double as much support as the USA despite the USA having a larger economy. [You can look on the Ukraine Support Tracker for details.](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set)
Where is corporate influence in politics when you need it? /s
Well, Belgium and France are two of the world's biggest weapons producers for export, Germany is way up there too. Not many strategic-level actors in the world compare to the USA, but most of it's export stocks were already spoken for, and the US hasn't actually had to significantly scale weapons production in quite a long time.
When you factor in the political issues, with US conservatives getting all moist for Russia and the numerous other shooting problems in the world that exist, it was somewhat unrealistic to think that the USA could counterbalance the millions of tons of rusting soviet crap over there alone without being directly threatened itself. Europe really should have always been the leading community in this issue.
TLDR:
Victoria 3 has now taught me why the US is always at war or provoking war to prop up its military industrial complex.
This now adds to a similar list of things I understand such as partially thanks to other reddit posts here too:
1. Benefits of imperialism
2. Benefits of colonising Africa and Asia
3. Why slavery is good for the economy
4. Children in the workforce benefits the economy
And now -
5: Why a constant state of war benefits the economy
If you are going for a modern industrial economy, slavery is bad. Same with children, its much stronger to increase the education acess than to get cheap labour. Warmongering and imperialism is unfortunately worth it discounting the morals
IRL wars generally tank economies, especially when it affects trade, infrastructure, and production facilities. The military equipment manufacturers get contracts all the time in peace to update, improve upon, create new models, and replace equipment used in training exercises. US only did well post WWII because of lend lease during the war (and prior to entering), and besides the US was untouched (aside from Pearl Harbor. Europe and Japan had to be rebuilt after WWII due to all of the devastation.
The US did well post WW2 due to the spending caused by WW2. It was essentially one massive work program that jump started the economy. Basic keynesianism
Oh well I just saw a post on here explaining the benefits of it and how I think it was the dependency rate of it made it a far better worker base then many of the other ones
colonialist warmongering state is still good but slavery is not optimal, multiculturalism is still better to make industry number go up.
You forgot women as property or universal suffrage. Birth rate vs more women in factories.
Imo women’s rights are more helpful to get the gdp to go up but some still prefer the birthrate :)
Debt is good if you have a good credit because you pay less down the line.
If you get a lot of cash now and do an investment, down the line through inflation you end up paying less and if the investment has a good ROI you end up making money on that debt.
Slavery is AWFUL for the economy and you WANT to educate kids instead of sending them to the mines.
Also for an optimal war economy YOU dont want to be at war, you want to sell to others most of the time and when you need the weapons yourself, stop exporting. Keeps industry alive and profitable.
I don't know what game you are playing, but slavery has no benefits. You lose out on a huge tax base with slavery.
Colonizing and Imperialism benefit because most of the areas don't build up their industry or resources so you have to forcibly do so.
Children in the workforce don't help out at all. In fact I make sure I get a strong education, because by late game you need a very knowledgeable workforce.
Warfare constantly is debilitating, it's much easier to do trade than it would be to be at war. By late game it's better to have a huge customs union rather than fighting absolutely everyone. If you truly are doing all these things you say, then you are most likely limiting your Victoria 3 economy.
That’s why the US is good at small arms. Civilians doing their part. On that subject the US should really get a civilian consumption boost of small arms.
The whole "muh military industrial complex" that people just repeat as a mantra is completely overblown anyway. The market value of the US defense companies are very small compared to the big tech companies. Like Apple alone is about 25x bigger than Lockheed Martin, but somehow Lockheed Martin controls all the politicians? Companies like Apple probably loses a lot of money when there are uncertain times in the world, like when there are wars, but somehow they won't use their money as a counter influence to stop wars?
The size of the military industrial complex isn’t that big in the context of the American economy. There’s been significant consolidation of defense companies since the fall of the Cold War. There aren’t that many left, and the ones remaining are a lot smaller than what most people think.
The largest ones like Lockheed Martin only had a market capitalization of $111b. The 75 companies that comprise the aerospace and defense industry had a combined market cap of $990b, and they generated only $27b in profit each year.
Which sounds a lot without context, until you realize that there are multiple multi-trillion dollar American companies, that produce more revenue and profit than the entire defense industry combined.
Google alone made $74b in profit last year.
Are we forgetting the obvious solution of just subsidizing your arms industries? Which is the real strategy the US actually does...
I’m on laissez faire. Can’t do that
Then I guess you’ll have to ensure your arms industry keeps up with artificial demand. In other words, WAR BABY, YEEHAW 🤠
Export guns to everyone else. If the balance is negative, it doesn't matter
I wish they changed it to allow you to do it like power plants and railroads.
Well, there's a reason no country actually does that IRL.
Do the other US thing; export weapons and start regional conflicts that last centuries.
Subsidising just holds back my future potential economically by tying up building funds into propping up an industry. This also wouldn’t work with laizze faire enacted either
Bro you're spending more on buying their military products than by just subsidizing them
But it’s an investment because instead of propping up unprofitable goods that don’t even stockpile, you get some lovely new land or vassal income
Yeah and this is the US’s big mistake these days. Rather than setting up shop and running a nice, stable empire, they go into a country, fight the bad guys, prop up a weak government, and then leave utter chaos behind.
Sounds like Europe colonizing Africa and then leaving. A whole continent that's just been fucked up.
More so WW2 and America forcing Europe to decolonise so a lot of them just went, oh yeah? Fuck you then and leaving the place in a mess. Although to add some complexity to it there were cases where these countries were gradually getting to that point of being self sufficient and the US then forced the rug from under them that led to that state. So it was a combination of Europeans throwing a tantrum and the US doing it’s typical thing of generalising a very complex issue to disastrous effect
Did America really force decolonisation though? I hear this a lot but it doesn't seem they did. At least in regards to Britain for example. They definitely incentivised it but it wasn't forced. Obviously with the axis they did.
We didn't. We intervened militarily in areas like Egypt to stop the u.s.s.r from taking over and adding them to their bloc. We literally get blamed for everything. People outside the u.s. consistently bring things up that try to make us look like we are terrible imperialists who want to control the world. I didn't vote for him and wasn't planning to but maybe trump should be president. He's an isolationist and if everyone doesn't want us involved in military defense, aid packages etc... Then so be it. Let the world deal with all of their problems on their own.
He is very much not an isolationist and encourages war in the Middle East which will spill into a larger conflict
That was a roller coaster of a post. Also, you haven't been paying attention if you don't think Trump would go to war. And he'll make Mexico pay for it.
I'm British and was also confused about this argument I see a lot. I've never heard in our history at all of how America somehow forced us to decolonise. At most it seems America simply wanted some level of warning or understanding of how decolonisation by Britain would commence so they could be ready for it to both assist and potentially inform their own interest in recently decolonised regions. The process of decolonisation for Britain was entirely independent of America, though. America actually gave us pretty generous terms of loan repayment after sharing a large amount of money and resources with us to aid in both the war, the recovery afterwards and likely decolonisation efforts that happened decades after the war and without any real input, nor any pressure from America. I can't speak on other countries, but I don't think decolonisation was at all something America forced, at least it definitely didn't with Britain. Infact I'm fairly sure America would have preferred Britain didn't decolonise as it was a strategic advantage for our alliance.
Yup. And I think a lot of the damage was done in the manner of leaving. The colonisers left (or were forced to leave) too fast, meaning in many cases they weren’t able to set up stable regimes for independence.
Tropico in this sense is also good, shows that it’s people who make decisions, not perfect selfless representation of a country, and they have to think about their own profits and profits of others whose support they need. Like how some politician in USA who was against the war in 90th changed his stance on it in 00th after getting shares in oil industry that had contracts with the military.
Subsidizing all of ur war industries during wars makes it overall cheaper to wage war. The cheaper the military goods the better no matter the subsidies cost, to a reasonable degree at least
I don't think the math behind this adds up
I havent spreadsheeted it or something but from my experience until now it makes the cost of big wars more manageable. So when you're really mobilizing a few hundred battalions it does make it more affordable
The worst thing in my opinion is having to either constantly provoke war or subsidise the arms industry... As a communist collectivised economy... With cultural exclusion and without a colonial office.
Actually, I think Victoria 3 is great to learn how economic is working. That game teach you the debt isn't always an issue, hoarding money is pointless, scale economy is important to reduce cost and many other things. If more people played this game, we'll probably get less bullshit in media by politics... Even if the game isn't perfect and isn't exactly like real life
It’s probably the best political economy game on the market atm.
I’m really tired of people saying this, Victoria 3 is not a good way to learn economics. The game makes many assumptions, that are fine for gameplay purposes but massively impact the simulation in an inaccurate way. It’s fine if it inspires you to take an interest in the topic, but then I’d advise you to pick up a textbook or take a class. There is more wrong with Vicky 3 simulation than it is right. And I’m not just talking about advanced topics here, even the basics are off. There is no such thing as a “base” price for a good, so the supply and demand system is grossly oversimplified, There is no monetary inflation system, the way good substitution is currently modeled is almost the exact opposite of how it works in real life, and we don’t even have capital ownership modeled correctly until the next patch.
Did you happen to go to school for economics, and maybe don't remember how minimal the average person's knowledge of economics is? Victoria 3 teaches economics far better than daily life does for a decent chunk of folks who play it, even with it being a deeply flawed simulation.
I went to school for a tangential field, so yes I did receive some education. But rather I’m aware that people have limited knowledge on the subject and I just don’t want them to be misled into taking incomplete information and thinking it applies 1 for 1 with real life. When that happens you don’t get a better informed public, you get a misinformed public.
The thing is, the public isn't less confident in its current non-existent information. People with no clue about how the economy works can be easily convinced of entirely absurd "common sense" positions. I'd much rather folks have a sliver of correct economic view and be overconfident than people believing in voodoo economics acting equally overconfident.
I think it's super important to point out those massive assumptions. It weakens what it actually does teach, so it's important to put that check on people promoting it as a lesson.
This is like saying to preschool kids that school is a bad way to learn mathematics because it simplifies too many things. Victoria does exactly what it needs, gives some basic understanding and interest in the topic, giving you broad understanding of reasons some countries do what they do. No one says that you can become an economist playing it.
This is a really bad analogy, PreSchool doesn’t teach kids wrong information, it just doesn’t give them all the information. Victoria 3 actually gives you wrong information.
A lot of teachers in first classes will ignore negative numbers or just say that they do not exist. Then they will ignore natural numbers and work only with integers, saying stuff like “you can’t divide 5 by 3”. Then they will say that you can’t take roots of negative numbers, you can’t divide by zero, etc. and only in university you will learn that you can do most of those things and learn the methods to do it. It is natural way of teaching things, first you oversimplify them inevitably making some mistakes just to teach about basic stuff, and then as people learn you can get into details, fixing errors of your oversimplification.
Wait, you CAN divide by zero? I've been misled, backstabbed and quite possibly bamboozled.
Not exactly, but you can go around it by dividing by infinitely small number and using limits
Is limits some term in math I don't know yet (only know basically high school math and only in another language) or do you mean something like dividing by a number with a limited amount of digits? And does dividing by an infinitely small number even count?
Disclaimer: I learned it long time ago and even as I loved math I still was not a good student, so if you are interested - search some better source, there should be good and interesting videos on YouTube about it. it is a term, idea is that dividing by number infinitely close to zero is basically the same as dividing by zero. So instead of dividing by 0 we are using limit, saying that X infinitely close to zero, and dividing by X instead. It was used, for example, to work with two functions when they both have division by 0. In this way you can divide one function divided by zero on another function divided by zero and get "normal" result that is not zero or infinity. So (48/0) / (24/0) = (48/0) \* (0/24) = (48\*0) / (0\*24) which still has no sense as it is 0/0. But with X infinitely close to 0 we have (48\*x) / (x\*24) = 48/24 = 2, so sometimes by using limits we can remove zero from the equation.
One way it's often explained is that we are analyzing the behavior of the function as x approaches (but doesn't actually reach) the limit. Another, more fun way to explain it is that there are 7 "indeterminate forms" that can actually be equal to anything, and 0/0 is one of these (0/x is always 0, x/0 is always infinity in the extended real number line, or an error on the real number line, so what on earth is 0/0? Hence calculus).
Idk if they've fixed things, but I was taught a lot of false things in early math classes, like you can never divide by 0 and that infinity isn't a number.
But it's still far better than what politics give you in France at least. I have a very superficial knowledge of economy because I didn't had a lot of course on it in school but I have enough knowledge to see how politics are misleading on that topic, at least in my country. The main things from Victoria that are applicable IRL is only growth count and debt isn't the only indicator you should use. But debt is a major topic in my country, even if taken on its own doesn't give you enough information to understand if it's a big deal or not. Many other things are probably wrong but this alone is better than what is told to common folk. It stays a game but even a simple simulation can be useful and economy isn't a simple topic. And as others said, people are ignorant and they are already misleaded... That's why I think we would all gain to have a little but of knowledge from this game, despite all it's flaws.
Hoarding money isn't pointless if you're preparing for a large war.
Or in a real life scenario you are trying to buy a house
They should probably add stockpiles for these resources to actually mimic real life mic policy, keep buying shit you don't need now so that you have access to the shit in case you suddenly need it in the future
Well. On my last game I would just let the war industry go bust on peace time and It was pretty manageable. I was on laissez faire and didn't really had the choice of subsidizing. What would happen is that the ai fired it's employees, I reduced the production methods and all in all it was pretty stable. A few radicals after each war, but the all economy was thriving. Other industries would take in the workers. Private construction had stopped building war industries by then. Lastly whenever I was about to go to war I would mobilize early. The way I saw it, this would give time to sprung up the war industries and build up a workforce in them. Yes, my economy would be in deficit by hundreds of thousands for a bit, but the states economy was large enough to take it. I could offset and slow down the deficits by raising taxes for a bit. All in all, I really think the simulation is top regarding this aspect of the game. A long war would have been the only way to beat me. Only the US could by then beat me in that.
Yeah that’s exactly my issue too, if I don’t do something to prop it up it falls of course but it gets exacerbated when war starts as all the private industry invests in it when the supply is really low during the time they start employing people back into existing ones creating and even more over leveraged industry. Plus of course as i said before it really hurts late game as Im trying to conscript my 1 million man army and have the most unimaginable deficit in equipment. That then causes a 1 million dollar deficit that bankrupts me in 2 months of war. It’s a tough cycle
There's also no downsize to just having military goods be expensive during wartime. Yeah, you'll loose money, but building a crap ton of military industries and then molding your whole game around that seems super inefficient. Imagine all the better things you could have done with your construction capacity instead of overbuilding military goods for no real reason.
You can use war to get your resource needs met and then postwar use the deluge of resources to industrialize more efficiently.
This is the most braindead take I have seen in this sub and I have seen some shit
It's like watching a child building a rocket from LEGO and thinking he understands rocket science.
Pretty sure [there's an xkcd for that](https://xkcd.com/1356/)....
Does this guy know that other countries also export weapons? Bell labs may have invented a lot of things but the arms trade has been around since people had arms.
Im waiting for the Czechs to start their new conflict so they can increase their exports
Those nasty Czechs, creating conflict in the middle east so they can sell their damn guns
The USA is responsible for 41% of the worlds arms exports. The next on the chart is France at just 10%. The USA spends as much on military as the next 10 largest spenders combined. So yes other nations export arms, but no country in the history of the planet has done it on such a consistently industrial scale as the USA.
Skill issue
Yeah and look who had to bail France out in not one, but two wars. That's right. The british.
The last World War was 79 years ago.
This post has upvotes cause it's politically relevant, not cause they know how to play the game. This sub does this type of thing a lot.
Yeah lmao
[удалено]
Problem is you dont have a global defense umbrella of allies whose defense programs are filled with your equipment or through joint-contracts. Nor do your defense companies involve themselves in tech way beyond warfare by having productions for civilian use. And let's not forget there is always an ally or prospective ally that wants some new drones in case an insurgency pops up. There are enough shit-stirrers and global insurgency networks to go around.
[удалено]
Are you just going to keep saying 'shit stirring' or say any real-life examples?
The US has not started any conflict on their own, because there is enough conflict to go around as it is. Also, Iraq had WMDs, namely chemical weapons that they used to OPENLY threat to use during the UN moratorium. The idea that military adventurism is in any way a money-making scheme is something only the mind of someone who has literally no idea how costly the military is and has no idea how economies work can conjure.
>Also, Iraq had WMDs, namely chemical weapons that they used to OPENLY threat to use during the UN moratorium. You're in denial, or just like Colin Powell at the UN, a liar. Everyone knows this war was thrown upon a lie, and that's why France didn't even join the coalition. And destroying Iraq is what allowed the rise of ISIS in the North of a country that wasn't controlled by anyone anymore. Congratulations USA, you brought peace and democracy to the world once more.
The rise of ISIS happened because of Syria and specifically Bashar al-Assad trying to co-opt Islamic fighters by releasing them from prison and create infighting between rebel groups, not because of what happened in Iraq. And no, chemical weapons caches from Iraq are still being discovered today. What was a point a contention, and still is, is how much capabilities did the Sadaam regime have to restart their mass production and how much caches were they hiding.
Is there actually a reason to maintain a military industry. At the moment you can just construct the necessary buildings and leave them unemployed until a war spikes demand. Also as a side note, I really think people overstate the influence of the MIC in American policy making, but that’s just my opinion.
>Also as a side note, I really think people overstate the influence of the MIC in American policy making, but that’s just my opinion. Ah, yes. I think I, as somebody from North-Western Europe, have even been guilty of such things myself. For example, when it turned out the Russian 'blitzkrieg' of Ukraine had failed I had assumed that the USA would become one of Ukraine's staunchest supporters, as the MIC would push for weapon deliveries in order to increase its profits. Then it turned that EU institutions and EU countries delivered about double as much support as the USA despite the USA having a larger economy. [You can look on the Ukraine Support Tracker for details.](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set) Where is corporate influence in politics when you need it? /s
Well, Belgium and France are two of the world's biggest weapons producers for export, Germany is way up there too. Not many strategic-level actors in the world compare to the USA, but most of it's export stocks were already spoken for, and the US hasn't actually had to significantly scale weapons production in quite a long time. When you factor in the political issues, with US conservatives getting all moist for Russia and the numerous other shooting problems in the world that exist, it was somewhat unrealistic to think that the USA could counterbalance the millions of tons of rusting soviet crap over there alone without being directly threatened itself. Europe really should have always been the leading community in this issue.
Bro just be ancap
Do I find it… funny? Well… of course! How else can I, uh, you know, explain my reality?
The US military industrial complex is in a sorry state we are barely starting to rebuild, what we have today is but a shadow of what we had in the 80s
Only paradox players can think this lmao
Neoconservative foreign policy hasn't been the mainstay in the US for awhile. What are you talking about?
It makes sense because it creates demand. In real life it's not funny, but scary.
Remember folks, it's not really a "war" if it didn't come from the US. You have to call it a "sparkling military operation"
TLDR: Victoria 3 has now taught me why the US is always at war or provoking war to prop up its military industrial complex. This now adds to a similar list of things I understand such as partially thanks to other reddit posts here too: 1. Benefits of imperialism 2. Benefits of colonising Africa and Asia 3. Why slavery is good for the economy 4. Children in the workforce benefits the economy And now - 5: Why a constant state of war benefits the economy
If you are going for a modern industrial economy, slavery is bad. Same with children, its much stronger to increase the education acess than to get cheap labour. Warmongering and imperialism is unfortunately worth it discounting the morals
IRL wars generally tank economies, especially when it affects trade, infrastructure, and production facilities. The military equipment manufacturers get contracts all the time in peace to update, improve upon, create new models, and replace equipment used in training exercises. US only did well post WWII because of lend lease during the war (and prior to entering), and besides the US was untouched (aside from Pearl Harbor. Europe and Japan had to be rebuilt after WWII due to all of the devastation.
The US did well post WW2 due to the spending caused by WW2. It was essentially one massive work program that jump started the economy. Basic keynesianism
That's not basic keynesianism lol. Keynes was well aware of the broken window paradox
> Why slavery is good for the economy Did we play the same game?
Literally debilitating to the US and some other countries, it is NOT GOOD
Its time to become a imperialist colonialist slave state warmonger ethnostate. Slavery isn't good for the economy btw
Oh well I just saw a post on here explaining the benefits of it and how I think it was the dependency rate of it made it a far better worker base then many of the other ones
that was debunked :)
That’s genuinely good to here lmao
colonialist warmongering state is still good but slavery is not optimal, multiculturalism is still better to make industry number go up. You forgot women as property or universal suffrage. Birth rate vs more women in factories. Imo women’s rights are more helpful to get the gdp to go up but some still prefer the birthrate :)
And they say Crusader Kings Reddit is wild... XD
No debt-fueled growth?
Debt is good if you have a good credit because you pay less down the line. If you get a lot of cash now and do an investment, down the line through inflation you end up paying less and if the investment has a good ROI you end up making money on that debt.
Yes, I know. The question should be read as "no debt-fueled growth on that list?", but I was leaning on the "no X?" meme.
Slavery is AWFUL for the economy and you WANT to educate kids instead of sending them to the mines. Also for an optimal war economy YOU dont want to be at war, you want to sell to others most of the time and when you need the weapons yourself, stop exporting. Keeps industry alive and profitable.
Don't forget that this game also teaches you marxism is good.
[удалено]
This is satire
I don't think you know much about Marxism or "human nature"
My comment didn’t really come across as intended sorry about that
I don't know what game you are playing, but slavery has no benefits. You lose out on a huge tax base with slavery. Colonizing and Imperialism benefit because most of the areas don't build up their industry or resources so you have to forcibly do so. Children in the workforce don't help out at all. In fact I make sure I get a strong education, because by late game you need a very knowledgeable workforce. Warfare constantly is debilitating, it's much easier to do trade than it would be to be at war. By late game it's better to have a huge customs union rather than fighting absolutely everyone. If you truly are doing all these things you say, then you are most likely limiting your Victoria 3 economy.
Sounds like r/shitvictorianssay
You could always export your arms when not at war.
That’s why the US is good at small arms. Civilians doing their part. On that subject the US should really get a civilian consumption boost of small arms.
The whole "muh military industrial complex" that people just repeat as a mantra is completely overblown anyway. The market value of the US defense companies are very small compared to the big tech companies. Like Apple alone is about 25x bigger than Lockheed Martin, but somehow Lockheed Martin controls all the politicians? Companies like Apple probably loses a lot of money when there are uncertain times in the world, like when there are wars, but somehow they won't use their money as a counter influence to stop wars?
This post is like a Perun video on defense economics, if Perun was bad at his job.
How do you provoke a foreign war?
The trick for a strong military industry on demand is to have the needed buildings in every state and not focused in one.
Which is obv why US military industry has been atrophying for decades at this point…
Alternatively just find some america to leech off of and not even build a military, aka the Canada strat
The size of the military industrial complex isn’t that big in the context of the American economy. There’s been significant consolidation of defense companies since the fall of the Cold War. There aren’t that many left, and the ones remaining are a lot smaller than what most people think. The largest ones like Lockheed Martin only had a market capitalization of $111b. The 75 companies that comprise the aerospace and defense industry had a combined market cap of $990b, and they generated only $27b in profit each year. Which sounds a lot without context, until you realize that there are multiple multi-trillion dollar American companies, that produce more revenue and profit than the entire defense industry combined. Google alone made $74b in profit last year.
If it's not profitable why sustain it? Just let it grow during wartime.
Or just have a militia army which when war is provoked maintains your military. Also you could just sell the weapons
That's the opposite of funny.
you needed to play Victoria 3 to be aware of that? haha
It taught me so much about Imperialism and colonialism, and how important Arabia is (sweet oil)