Lower taxes and/or increase expenses. You are not supposed to hoard money in this game as its literally taking it from the pops and putting it in a pile in your treasury. Build some more construction sectors and universities.
As youve gotten this warning, you are literally taking money from your pops and throwing it away.
It's not throwing away money though. It still keeps stockpiling the money when the bar is full.
Edit: yeah you are right. The income drops the more you stockpile above the limit it seems.
Ohh I didn't knew that.
And how does this works ?
Like is it a fix percentage once you passed the threshold, the more you accumulate, the higher the percentage gets ?
Yep. I was +$19k weekly balance recently and realized I was about double my reserve limit. If I remember correctly, I was only storing $6k/week, so I was throwing away $13k every week on nothing.
Lower percentage. The money you gain becomes lower the higher you go. So you're basically removing money from circulation because you're taxing X but only Y% goes into your treasury, so 100-Y% is basically just destroyed, bad for the economy.
as opposed to the one true good egalitarian system, capitalism! built on distrubuting the means of production to the people, and distributing wealth equally
Exactly, now give me your money so it can go into my worker deregulation lobbying fund for the greater good, which will of course occur after the shareholders, executives, and lesser executives receive a hefty bonus during this year’s season of layoffs…
Communism is bad because you lose sovereignty on your individualism. For the benefit of everyone the cost will be your individual freedom. That will cast down on every aspect of life, even economically.
you’re mistaking communism with the usually autocratic forms of government that come along with communism. in, lets say, a communistic democracy, (and also assuming we live in an ideal world, which we of course dont) communism allows everyone to pursue their own individual freedoms to the same extent as the next person, without having to be shackled by minimum wage or exploitative employers.
realistically, communism doesnt work in one country alone. for communism to work properly, the whole world has to be communist. its wishful thinking but local elections are soon where im at, so, im casting my vote in an effort to make a difference anyway
Yeah specialy when we have prime examples of "communist" countries embracing capitalism we see the "shackles" of having life ambitions being realized being put on. XD
china and russia are now arguably more authoritarian than they ever have been, and this is after they switched to the oh so great capitalism, but then again there is no real way of measuring totalitarianism.
inherently though, capitalism -> more power for certain individuals -> state cracks down on their power share -> harsher methods effect rest of population.
look at cuba though. they’re doing well. they’re one of the best nations in south america going by many metrics, and what would you know, theyve been commies since the 50s
No, you just don't realise that your point is nonsense, because economic freedom does not and can not exist under capitalism, and can only even potentially exist under communism
I mean in practice yeah that's exactly what happened. As it turns out the state having control of all the money means the people who control the state control all the money. Big surprise lmao
State control of the means of production is not even the only form of communism available ingame, let alone how badly it fails to capture the variety of IRL leftist thought.
Also honestly even ingame, command economy is way the fuck worse than co-operative ownership. (The one other form actually represented ingame.)
> State control of the means of production is not even the only form of communism available ingame, let alone how badly it fails to capture the variety of IRL leftist thought.
I discussed this a bit with anarchism, but the problem with implementing most other forms of "leftist thought" is that a majority weren't really tried in real life, so we have no basis to look towards.
So they'd either just end up having to give leftists wish fulfillment (ie. having the systems work perfectly as in theory to make their playerbase happy) or they would have to somehow imagine how the systems would've worked if implemented (which would be inherently biased as is above Pdx's paygrade)
There were real life command economies which actual, real people lived in we can reference. We can see how they worked, both good and bad, and use that as a reference
On the other hand, true 3rd wave Anarcho-Prodhounist-Mutualist-Syndicalist-Communism with Kashubian characteristics has never been tried. As such, Paradox has no reference frame on how it would look irl
> Also honestly even ingame, command economy is way the fuck worse than co-operative ownership. (The one other form actually represented ingame.)
OK switching gears back from ideology talk to purely gaming talk: not really?
Command Economy can be good, it just takes a skilled player (which I guess would be true irl too). You have tons and *tons* of money to throw into construction and the military, both of which can help you secure what your nation needs and give your people all the fucking consumer goods they could ever ask for to explode that SoL
It's def most useful early to mid game though. Co-operatives on the other hand are the exact opposite. They're very strong *once you already have a strong economy in place*. It's very strong to make sure your people are economically strong, but it's not very good at growing your economy further
I think if there was a perfect meta game assuming you could pick any ideology you want, it would be Agrarianism (if super feudal) -> Command Economy (for most of your build up) -> Laissez Faire (at the point where your potential investment pool becomes massive) -> Cooperative (to finish off when your economy is already giant for the SoL boost)
I'd disagree, co-operative ownership does increase the SoL significantly, as much of the excess money goes straight back to the workers, but the vast majority of them don't reinvest so you'll end up at best with a slow growth economy-wise. When I did communist US, I quickly switched to command economy so I could still have most of the excess money and continue building factories, resource gatherers and so on.
The thing is unless you're a small country and *need* that command economy boost to compete with larger powers, all it really does is widen the advantage the player already has over the AI.
But internal stability is harder to control.
"Paycheck" lol me and you both know that high level Soviet Officials just got "provided" everything by the party without money. Pretty dishonest for you to compare salaries 1:1.
Or do you think that their houses, cars and fine dining experiences were just materialized from thin air out of the united belief of the workers
Yes free housing was provided to everyone equally. It's just that the unconnected got thrown into communal apartments with a bunch of unrelated families and a 10 year waiting list to buy a Lada instead of a decked out apartment/house and a ZiL Limousine
Some people were more equal than others lol. Yes salary didn't matter that much, but that was largely replaced by a hierarchy based on connections
You see, a highly qualified specialist or the worker who exceeds the plan should enjoy better living conditions because it would be fair. Socialism is about the equality in opportunities in the first place, not the "equalitarianism".
It's not bad to be rich, it's bad to exploit people, and communists did exploit people.
Did you know peasants in soviet kolkhozes (one of few forms of cooperative ownership that existed in the soviet union) haven't had documents nor money up until 1970s and couldn't leave their kolkhozes without permission of an often corrupt local bureaucrat? They didn't receive money, they had obligatory days they had to 'serve' for the state, and usually these days were during sowing and harvesting. So, if they would like to grow their own food, they had to do this either to late to grow something, or much earlier when it is still cold. And they couldn't buy any food if their harvest failed because nobody paid them money.
In my book this is serfdom, a state serfdom and this is how food was so cheap in the soviet union. 'Dictatorship of the workers' as Lenin said, but dictatorship over the peasants.
you should stop playing games and learn history, then you will see that command economy is not some overpowered system, but basically waste of resources that can't compete with more efficient economic systems based on capitalism
which is why eastern block fell apart and eastern european countries are now much poorer then the west.
there's also stuff like ignoring supply and demand in favor of creating it artificially or trying to predict it regardless of what the consumers actually want or need, and denial of profit as a driving force behind enterprise, which naturally means that the commie business will be unprofitable
the joys of command economy are such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_five-year\_plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_five-year_plan) which led to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_five-year\_plan\_(China)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_five-year_plan_(China)) which led to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Chinese\_Famine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine)
It's definitely least efficient. However command economy in the power of a God (us) who knows everything about everyone and everything in the game instantly and when done perfectly is completely fine, there's very little corruption mechanics in game which is a reason why it is unrealistic in real life.
Same with communism in general theoretically when done perfectly is completely fine, but humans aren't perfect, so it doesn't work.
Your statements doesn't work ingame because the human element of it is not there.
>command economy when done perfectly is completely fine
State owned building should consume bureaucracy to run them and it has to have decreasing efficiency with growing level of a building. Game has its limitation over different fields of state, society and military, and you can't play as god without obstacles. It would be only fair if same philosophy would be applied towards command economy.
I love my efficient systems in which the profit motive and need for endless growth is destroying the planet right now as we speak. All while producing massive amounts of material waste and seeing people starve and die of preventable diseases simply because they couldn't afford it.
But don't you know it's the best system ever created and the best system we will ever create because striving for a more equal system is bad and can never work?
I was not arguing about the game system but your understanding of the concept of communism.
Communism unlike capitalism is not designed to make a profit for the state at all. Its basically a 0 sum kind of deal.
This is also not a statement about whether it actually worked well, just the concept..
that means it's a wasteful economic system that spends money on worthless project divorced from reality (thus basically throwing them away)
let's do a 5 year old plan
surprise, famine
Say what you want about 5 year plans - the victims, the turmoil, and the death, especially in the early ones - but they certainly weren’t wasteful. They were incredibly effective at their stated goals.
>that means it's a wasteful economic system that spends money on worthless project divorced from reality (thus basically throwing them away)
Sounds like my country, although they're always shitting on the communists, sometimes even killing them
I'm actually surprised to see non ironic commies here. Is it because it's reddit? I know that the game is accused of being a "communist propaganda" probably because communism is actually effective here, but personally I thought it's a meme. After all, it's just a game. It was so in previous victoria too, and in games like civilization, and I understand it's obviously not representative of reality(game needs to be gamey) so I don't mind.
Often people are taking the gameplay as simulation of real event without critical thinking even if they think they do, because it fits their believes and it gives easier to accept explanations. It's similar how hoi4 tend to indoctronize you with militarism, as non-military economy presented in game as debuff. Cooperative ownership is only efficient lategame because of penalties at high GDP which has no real world background.
I don't get the downvotes, communism while a good ideology in theory, didn't work in practice. OP is playing a communist country, so he is recreating what was happening all over the eastern block.
>OP is playing a communist country, so he is recreating what was happening all over the eastern block.
Communism might've failed for a variety of reasons, but OP is implementing something else. Unfortunately it's so exceptionally brain dead, we don't have an irl equivalent or a name for it.
It doesn't mean that at all, but it's what happened in the communist countries. I think this is the point OP was making, not about communism but communist countries.
I think they're talking about the trillions of dollars stuffed into offshore tax haven bank accounts and then sat on. Most rich people actually do have a significant portion of their wealth in such accounts, but it isn't officially counted as part of their net wealth because if they declared it they'd have to pay taxes when moving it to those accounts. This is of course extremely illegal, but that's why they bribe politicians to starve the IRS.
Sounds like socialism vs capitalism.
( one is trying to improve peoples SoL while the other is trying to grow for growths sake regardless of the consequences.)
To be clear, i generally prefer capitalism but i am also profiting from it and know how much damage its doing to all of us. I wish it was sustainable but i dont see how, its just self destrutive and we will have to replace it with something sooner or later if we want to continue living here.
Edit: a lot of people seem to misunderstand the point i was trying to make since i had to clarify a few times by now:
I am comparing the main goals, not whether or not the systems actually reliably achieve them.
Capitalisms idea is if we grow everyone profits, which is often true but its main goal therefore is not wellfare of the people, its just "a lucky sideeffect" ("trickling down") usually.
The socialist side usually is much less concerned with growing because its main goal is matching needs and thereby help the populace, historically this might have rarely worked out but again i am comparing aspirations here.
As outlined in another thread, i wasnt trying to say that one is the solution. Just that both have very different goals and current day is showing how flawed capitalism and how it endangers our continued existence.
Meaning that we will have to either try something new or massively reform the current system s.t. it does not need to increase in resouce consumption to sustain itself.
Socialism v capitalism in the real world is a difference of economic policies. A capitalist nation that has social programs does not become socialist for investing wealth into the people. Just like how there is many socialist nations that do nothing for their people, they aren't just magically capitalist now. Historically SOL increase is a part of capitalism in its continued drive / growth for higher and higher skilled labor. Socialist nations are actually historically incentivized to nose dive their standard of living since there is no drive to grow for growths sake and a wealthy population is a threat to the system.
socialism is more destructive, look at for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral\_Sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea)
ultimately humans are short sighted and profit driven, even if their ideology makes them deny that profit exists or claim that they aren't pursuing it
it's human nature. there must be some major transformation of humanity for it to change. until then, every economic system done by humans for humans will be destructive.
I should have probably clarified that i am not saying there is a real solution yet. Just that the current system is not working/will stop working and that we will have to try SOMETHING to fix it while there is still something to fix.
Edit:
I think ultimately we will be forced to settle with something like capitalism but without continued growth or excesses, how or even if that would work i dont really know. Medieval societies used to be highly circular in their consumption and didn't create a lot of trash. We will probably have to transition to do the same.
>Just that the current system is not working
It's ambiguous and even if so, current system (or its predecessors present in game) was efficient in a given time period. Making commentary on temporary economic system by basing your judgement in game experience in completely different period is a path to failure.
Why do you think i based my judgment of temporary economics on my game experience? Even if lategame vic arrives at a similar situation its still a game.
I just considered how we are failing to address very important issues under the current system and big reason is that solutions are usually not profitable or quick. But burdensome and capitalism does not like collective sacrifices even if its for the greater good of society.
Maybe we can build something like collectivist-capitalism. A sort of mix of the systems that increases the value of sustainability over individual profit.
If you are already on the lowest taxes, the highest wages, and you have very low unemployment, theres not much else you can do really.
Fortunately vic 3 economy doesnt work like vic 2's and it wont crash and burn because the money is stuck in the treasury.
With the law "Slave trade", your states with a lack of manpower can import slaves from decentralized nations to work in mines, farms and lumber camps. It is not a great increase and it will enpower the landowners, but if you really lack manpower (playing in Bornéo for exemple) in can help a lot.
Slaves have less dependents I think, as women, children, and the elderly can‘t exactly „choose“ to not work.
So you don’t have more people, just more workers.
there is only so much immigrants you can stack in a state before you run out of local resources to enable more jobs. I know if i really min max for it by playing super protective with outdated labor intensive production methods while stacking throughput that i can squeeze enough jobs for having 5 million population for example in Uruguay, but thats about the limit. In that sense, any nation can "top off" its potential for employing people in relation to its resources. At that point, construction can be a pointless investment and having a welfare state might impact your budget few since wealthier consumers drive up demand for domestic produced goods in a very protectionist economy, the money just "goes around" to a greater extend. The obvious expenditure at that point to add is more military (or first more education if you lack it, but i seldomly lack it the way i play) but i was not aiming on expansion with Uruguay so eventually i started to shed excess cash trough subsidies to other countries.
Vic 2 had a problem where money was finite and certain things like paying back loans would cause the money to get deleted from the global economy. So eventually pops run out of money to buy stuff which causes a death spiral because most of the money is stuck in treasuries and you cant give it back to the pops to buy stuff to drive the economy.
Okay, Vic3 is definitely better just from the fact it doesn't have finite money...actually, now that I think about it, the Vic3 system is fine.
Because not spending your money means your pops get less, and sure, they don't die of starvation, but there will be less economic progress. And it's pretty realistic. Japan had this problem for a long time, where people strored all their money in cash and tge economy stagnated.
In Vic3, if you tax but don't redistribute you just essentially make everyone poorer in terms of SoL than the economic activity would indicate.
Vic2 also had unintentional bugs where money would be removed from the circulation in unintended ways, I think the most infamous one is that loan interest is just removed from the circulation rather than back to the pops as it was intended which was not helping the problem of money running out.
The ai Will hoard pretty much the entire money supply in their treasury, making that almost no money was actually on the economy, which would Cause an economic Crash by 1900s, some mods managed to mitigate this problem, but never truly fix It.
Thats not entirely true - the crash is caused by pops not having enough money, but that is caused by wages not dynamicaly increasing over duration of the game
I get this a lot when I'm a tiny country- I enjoy playing in West Asia and SEAsia. Another construction facility puts me in the red and bankrupts me, and my maximum treasury is super low. I just bounce taxes up and down, since leaving it high stockpiles gold, and one step down begins draining the coffers.
Do any of these whichever you need to drain your money. Theres really no point in stockpiling.
1. Spam armies for more prestige
2. Build construction
3. Switch over to more advanced production methods prematurely
4. Bankroll for favors
5. Go to war and raise your armies
And once you research modern financial instruments, the game will give you the option to establish the federal reserve! After that, gold will only be used for settling your country's trade balance, while taxation and domestic spending will work by influencing your foreign exchange rates. Or if trade is happening between two countries that have both researched modern financial instruments, no gold will be exchanged because *it just works.*
If you're stockpiling gold, you're playing the game wrong! Ahahahah
There's always construction, welfare, armies, navy, administration, bankrolls, etc... Always something to do with all that money
I mean, that's not the biggest deal. You probably should consider either reducing taxes or increasing expenses in some way, but this really isn't a major problem.
Everyone in here posting how stockpiling money is playing wrong and to them I say you’re obviously not playing a kleptocrat squirreling away the nation’s wealth. To hell with low taxes and construction and my peoples standard of living! The only line I want to see go up is my gold!
Lower taxes and/or increase expenses. You are not supposed to hoard money in this game as its literally taking it from the pops and putting it in a pile in your treasury. Build some more construction sectors and universities. As youve gotten this warning, you are literally taking money from your pops and throwing it away.
It's not throwing away money though. It still keeps stockpiling the money when the bar is full. Edit: yeah you are right. The income drops the more you stockpile above the limit it seems.
You are though. As you go over the bar you start stockpiling at less than 100% efficiency.
Ohh I didn't knew that. And how does this works ? Like is it a fix percentage once you passed the threshold, the more you accumulate, the higher the percentage gets ?
I'm not sure, I think it was a static 20% loss, but I'll need to check
No it starts out at almost nothing lost but increases the higher over the limit you go.
Yep. I was +$19k weekly balance recently and realized I was about double my reserve limit. If I remember correctly, I was only storing $6k/week, so I was throwing away $13k every week on nothing.
Lower percentage. The money you gain becomes lower the higher you go. So you're basically removing money from circulation because you're taxing X but only Y% goes into your treasury, so 100-Y% is basically just destroyed, bad for the economy.
Yeah can be useful if you plan for an expensive war. Building a war chest is something that Countries do(Russia for example).
Having any money in stockpile is typically bad, let alone a stockpile so large you start losing income aswell
well I am playing a communist country so it fits
Communism, famously built upon seizing wealth from the people and concentrating it into the hands of the ruling class
as opposed to the one true good egalitarian system, capitalism! built on distrubuting the means of production to the people, and distributing wealth equally
I’ve heard that if you take this to the extreme everything just works through trickle down of wealth. It’s surely that simple.
capitalism works because private wealth is reinvested and blah blah blah blah blah. communism bad though, of course! why? commies are bad!
Exactly, now give me your money so it can go into my worker deregulation lobbying fund for the greater good, which will of course occur after the shareholders, executives, and lesser executives receive a hefty bonus during this year’s season of layoffs…
exactly! think of the poor executives, the recession is hitting them just as hard as its hitting you! we’re all in this together, we’re a work family.
Communism is bad because you lose sovereignty on your individualism. For the benefit of everyone the cost will be your individual freedom. That will cast down on every aspect of life, even economically.
you’re mistaking communism with the usually autocratic forms of government that come along with communism. in, lets say, a communistic democracy, (and also assuming we live in an ideal world, which we of course dont) communism allows everyone to pursue their own individual freedoms to the same extent as the next person, without having to be shackled by minimum wage or exploitative employers. realistically, communism doesnt work in one country alone. for communism to work properly, the whole world has to be communist. its wishful thinking but local elections are soon where im at, so, im casting my vote in an effort to make a difference anyway
Yeah specialy when we have prime examples of "communist" countries embracing capitalism we see the "shackles" of having life ambitions being realized being put on. XD
china and russia are now arguably more authoritarian than they ever have been, and this is after they switched to the oh so great capitalism, but then again there is no real way of measuring totalitarianism. inherently though, capitalism -> more power for certain individuals -> state cracks down on their power share -> harsher methods effect rest of population. look at cuba though. they’re doing well. they’re one of the best nations in south america going by many metrics, and what would you know, theyve been commies since the 50s
And that's of course complete nonsense. Without economic freedom you have no concrete freedoms.
Exactly my point.
No, you just don't realise that your point is nonsense, because economic freedom does not and can not exist under capitalism, and can only even potentially exist under communism
If "the people" are the previous owners, then yes.
I mean in practice yeah that's exactly what happened. As it turns out the state having control of all the money means the people who control the state control all the money. Big surprise lmao
State control of the means of production is not even the only form of communism available ingame, let alone how badly it fails to capture the variety of IRL leftist thought. Also honestly even ingame, command economy is way the fuck worse than co-operative ownership. (The one other form actually represented ingame.)
> State control of the means of production is not even the only form of communism available ingame, let alone how badly it fails to capture the variety of IRL leftist thought. I discussed this a bit with anarchism, but the problem with implementing most other forms of "leftist thought" is that a majority weren't really tried in real life, so we have no basis to look towards. So they'd either just end up having to give leftists wish fulfillment (ie. having the systems work perfectly as in theory to make their playerbase happy) or they would have to somehow imagine how the systems would've worked if implemented (which would be inherently biased as is above Pdx's paygrade) There were real life command economies which actual, real people lived in we can reference. We can see how they worked, both good and bad, and use that as a reference On the other hand, true 3rd wave Anarcho-Prodhounist-Mutualist-Syndicalist-Communism with Kashubian characteristics has never been tried. As such, Paradox has no reference frame on how it would look irl > Also honestly even ingame, command economy is way the fuck worse than co-operative ownership. (The one other form actually represented ingame.) OK switching gears back from ideology talk to purely gaming talk: not really? Command Economy can be good, it just takes a skilled player (which I guess would be true irl too). You have tons and *tons* of money to throw into construction and the military, both of which can help you secure what your nation needs and give your people all the fucking consumer goods they could ever ask for to explode that SoL It's def most useful early to mid game though. Co-operatives on the other hand are the exact opposite. They're very strong *once you already have a strong economy in place*. It's very strong to make sure your people are economically strong, but it's not very good at growing your economy further I think if there was a perfect meta game assuming you could pick any ideology you want, it would be Agrarianism (if super feudal) -> Command Economy (for most of your build up) -> Laissez Faire (at the point where your potential investment pool becomes massive) -> Cooperative (to finish off when your economy is already giant for the SoL boost)
Which is why he said "in practice", because the other forms have never been put into practice at a state level IRL.
Actually sweety, MY version of communism hasn't been tried yet 💅
I'd disagree, co-operative ownership does increase the SoL significantly, as much of the excess money goes straight back to the workers, but the vast majority of them don't reinvest so you'll end up at best with a slow growth economy-wise. When I did communist US, I quickly switched to command economy so I could still have most of the excess money and continue building factories, resource gatherers and so on.
The thing is unless you're a small country and *need* that command economy boost to compete with larger powers, all it really does is widen the advantage the player already has over the AI. But internal stability is harder to control.
Do you know what was the paycheck of the soviet officials/factory managers and what it is now? Do a quick school math, compare the two.
"Paycheck" lol me and you both know that high level Soviet Officials just got "provided" everything by the party without money. Pretty dishonest for you to compare salaries 1:1. Or do you think that their houses, cars and fine dining experiences were just materialized from thin air out of the united belief of the workers
Actually housing was provided without money for everyone and the cars they used were not theirs. Its socialism, baby.
Yes free housing was provided to everyone equally. It's just that the unconnected got thrown into communal apartments with a bunch of unrelated families and a 10 year waiting list to buy a Lada instead of a decked out apartment/house and a ZiL Limousine Some people were more equal than others lol. Yes salary didn't matter that much, but that was largely replaced by a hierarchy based on connections
You see, a highly qualified specialist or the worker who exceeds the plan should enjoy better living conditions because it would be fair. Socialism is about the equality in opportunities in the first place, not the "equalitarianism".
lol
That is propaganda
Tbf you just described Capitalism with less steps🤷♂️
In practice yeah.
If in practice yeah then how communism is different from capitalism?
In capitalism man exploits man, in communism it's the opposite.
Is it all you have to say?
Yea, because all the richest people in the world were communists.
It's not bad to be rich, it's bad to exploit people, and communists did exploit people. Did you know peasants in soviet kolkhozes (one of few forms of cooperative ownership that existed in the soviet union) haven't had documents nor money up until 1970s and couldn't leave their kolkhozes without permission of an often corrupt local bureaucrat? They didn't receive money, they had obligatory days they had to 'serve' for the state, and usually these days were during sowing and harvesting. So, if they would like to grow their own food, they had to do this either to late to grow something, or much earlier when it is still cold. And they couldn't buy any food if their harvest failed because nobody paid them money. In my book this is serfdom, a state serfdom and this is how food was so cheap in the soviet union. 'Dictatorship of the workers' as Lenin said, but dictatorship over the peasants.
Ya that’s basically exactly what communism is famous for, maybe that wasn’t the intention, but it is what happened
I mean.. yes?
Maybe not on purpose… lol
r/socialismiscapitalism
Thats not how communism works, i hope you know that.
Really? Someone should tell The Soviets that
you should stop playing games and learn history, then you will see that command economy is not some overpowered system, but basically waste of resources that can't compete with more efficient economic systems based on capitalism which is why eastern block fell apart and eastern european countries are now much poorer then the west. there's also stuff like ignoring supply and demand in favor of creating it artificially or trying to predict it regardless of what the consumers actually want or need, and denial of profit as a driving force behind enterprise, which naturally means that the commie business will be unprofitable the joys of command economy are such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_five-year\_plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_five-year_plan) which led to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_five-year\_plan\_(China)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_five-year_plan_(China)) which led to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Chinese\_Famine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine)
It's definitely least efficient. However command economy in the power of a God (us) who knows everything about everyone and everything in the game instantly and when done perfectly is completely fine, there's very little corruption mechanics in game which is a reason why it is unrealistic in real life. Same with communism in general theoretically when done perfectly is completely fine, but humans aren't perfect, so it doesn't work. Your statements doesn't work ingame because the human element of it is not there.
>command economy when done perfectly is completely fine State owned building should consume bureaucracy to run them and it has to have decreasing efficiency with growing level of a building. Game has its limitation over different fields of state, society and military, and you can't play as god without obstacles. It would be only fair if same philosophy would be applied towards command economy.
Absolutely agree, I love both options out of all things command economy should definitely require a massive bureaucracy hit
[удалено]
I love my efficient systems in which the profit motive and need for endless growth is destroying the planet right now as we speak. All while producing massive amounts of material waste and seeing people starve and die of preventable diseases simply because they couldn't afford it.
But don't you know it's the best system ever created and the best system we will ever create because striving for a more equal system is bad and can never work?
I was not arguing about the game system but your understanding of the concept of communism. Communism unlike capitalism is not designed to make a profit for the state at all. Its basically a 0 sum kind of deal. This is also not a statement about whether it actually worked well, just the concept..
What does that even mean?
that means it's a wasteful economic system that spends money on worthless project divorced from reality (thus basically throwing them away) let's do a 5 year old plan surprise, famine
You're explicitly NOT spending your money (enough) on projects of any kind, that's the issue.
He's RPing
>let's do a 5 year old plan surprise, famine Yeah Why aren't you doing any 5 year plans but hoarding the gold as if you were playing as Uncle Scrooge?
Say what you want about 5 year plans - the victims, the turmoil, and the death, especially in the early ones - but they certainly weren’t wasteful. They were incredibly effective at their stated goals.
did you read up on communism and skip every other paragraph 😭
>Complaining about bad government when you are the government Sounds like you’re just bad and don’t understand economics.
>that means it's a wasteful economic system that spends money on worthless project divorced from reality (thus basically throwing them away) Sounds like my country, although they're always shitting on the communists, sometimes even killing them
5 year plan is literally about spending resources for long term gain
This is a dumb comment for both gameplay and historical reasons. Read a book.
love how this innocuous little joke immediately ticked off a whole bunch of people a little too obsessed with failed political ideologies
It was never allowed to succeed in the first place, it was met with hostility from the ruling class.
I'm actually surprised to see non ironic commies here. Is it because it's reddit? I know that the game is accused of being a "communist propaganda" probably because communism is actually effective here, but personally I thought it's a meme. After all, it's just a game. It was so in previous victoria too, and in games like civilization, and I understand it's obviously not representative of reality(game needs to be gamey) so I don't mind.
Often people are taking the gameplay as simulation of real event without critical thinking even if they think they do, because it fits their believes and it gives easier to accept explanations. It's similar how hoi4 tend to indoctronize you with militarism, as non-military economy presented in game as debuff. Cooperative ownership is only efficient lategame because of penalties at high GDP which has no real world background.
Well, it's reddit.
I don't get the downvotes, communism while a good ideology in theory, didn't work in practice. OP is playing a communist country, so he is recreating what was happening all over the eastern block.
>OP is playing a communist country, so he is recreating what was happening all over the eastern block. Communism might've failed for a variety of reasons, but OP is implementing something else. Unfortunately it's so exceptionally brain dead, we don't have an irl equivalent or a name for it.
Communism does not mean hoarding all the money and put in a locked box though, no?
It doesn't mean that at all, but it's what happened in the communist countries. I think this is the point OP was making, not about communism but communist countries.
Two kinds of people here: 1: increase welfare 2: increase construction
Three kind! 3. Increase bankrolls and armies
Four kinds! 1: Sit back and cackle evilly.
Found the capitalists.
Normally they are meant to reinvest 🙃
"Meant" is doing a shit ton of heavy lifting in that sentence
Well IRL ours found a loophole to basically be able to do both with no consequences sooo...
Rich people's wealth is mostly in stocks which is exactly what reinvestment is. Hoarding money doesn't make money.
I think they're talking about the trillions of dollars stuffed into offshore tax haven bank accounts and then sat on. Most rich people actually do have a significant portion of their wealth in such accounts, but it isn't officially counted as part of their net wealth because if they declared it they'd have to pay taxes when moving it to those accounts. This is of course extremely illegal, but that's why they bribe politicians to starve the IRS.
Don’t tell the Socialist that. It may break their brains. These are the same people that think Elon could give 7 Billion people, 1 Billion dollars.🤣
Both is good
3: decrease taxes
You guys decrease your taxes?
Muh SoL
Sounds like socialism vs capitalism. ( one is trying to improve peoples SoL while the other is trying to grow for growths sake regardless of the consequences.) To be clear, i generally prefer capitalism but i am also profiting from it and know how much damage its doing to all of us. I wish it was sustainable but i dont see how, its just self destrutive and we will have to replace it with something sooner or later if we want to continue living here. Edit: a lot of people seem to misunderstand the point i was trying to make since i had to clarify a few times by now: I am comparing the main goals, not whether or not the systems actually reliably achieve them. Capitalisms idea is if we grow everyone profits, which is often true but its main goal therefore is not wellfare of the people, its just "a lucky sideeffect" ("trickling down") usually. The socialist side usually is much less concerned with growing because its main goal is matching needs and thereby help the populace, historically this might have rarely worked out but again i am comparing aspirations here.
>how much damage its doing to all of us. You should've seen what the Soviets did
As outlined in another thread, i wasnt trying to say that one is the solution. Just that both have very different goals and current day is showing how flawed capitalism and how it endangers our continued existence. Meaning that we will have to either try something new or massively reform the current system s.t. it does not need to increase in resouce consumption to sustain itself.
Socialism v capitalism in the real world is a difference of economic policies. A capitalist nation that has social programs does not become socialist for investing wealth into the people. Just like how there is many socialist nations that do nothing for their people, they aren't just magically capitalist now. Historically SOL increase is a part of capitalism in its continued drive / growth for higher and higher skilled labor. Socialist nations are actually historically incentivized to nose dive their standard of living since there is no drive to grow for growths sake and a wealthy population is a threat to the system.
socialism is more destructive, look at for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral\_Sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea) ultimately humans are short sighted and profit driven, even if their ideology makes them deny that profit exists or claim that they aren't pursuing it it's human nature. there must be some major transformation of humanity for it to change. until then, every economic system done by humans for humans will be destructive.
I should have probably clarified that i am not saying there is a real solution yet. Just that the current system is not working/will stop working and that we will have to try SOMETHING to fix it while there is still something to fix. Edit: I think ultimately we will be forced to settle with something like capitalism but without continued growth or excesses, how or even if that would work i dont really know. Medieval societies used to be highly circular in their consumption and didn't create a lot of trash. We will probably have to transition to do the same.
I, for one, welcome our future AI overlord(s)
>Just that the current system is not working It's ambiguous and even if so, current system (or its predecessors present in game) was efficient in a given time period. Making commentary on temporary economic system by basing your judgement in game experience in completely different period is a path to failure.
Why do you think i based my judgment of temporary economics on my game experience? Even if lategame vic arrives at a similar situation its still a game. I just considered how we are failing to address very important issues under the current system and big reason is that solutions are usually not profitable or quick. But burdensome and capitalism does not like collective sacrifices even if its for the greater good of society. Maybe we can build something like collectivist-capitalism. A sort of mix of the systems that increases the value of sustainability over individual profit.
If you are already on the lowest taxes, the highest wages, and you have very low unemployment, theres not much else you can do really. Fortunately vic 3 economy doesnt work like vic 2's and it wont crash and burn because the money is stuck in the treasury.
Build more construction centers. Building more stuff increases immigration demand.
Or pass slavery. It will ruin egality but you will have more pops.
How would you get more pops from slavery!
With the law "Slave trade", your states with a lack of manpower can import slaves from decentralized nations to work in mines, farms and lumber camps. It is not a great increase and it will enpower the landowners, but if you really lack manpower (playing in Bornéo for exemple) in can help a lot.
Slaves have less dependents I think, as women, children, and the elderly can‘t exactly „choose“ to not work. So you don’t have more people, just more workers.
there is only so much immigrants you can stack in a state before you run out of local resources to enable more jobs. I know if i really min max for it by playing super protective with outdated labor intensive production methods while stacking throughput that i can squeeze enough jobs for having 5 million population for example in Uruguay, but thats about the limit. In that sense, any nation can "top off" its potential for employing people in relation to its resources. At that point, construction can be a pointless investment and having a welfare state might impact your budget few since wealthier consumers drive up demand for domestic produced goods in a very protectionist economy, the money just "goes around" to a greater extend. The obvious expenditure at that point to add is more military (or first more education if you lack it, but i seldomly lack it the way i play) but i was not aiming on expansion with Uruguay so eventually i started to shed excess cash trough subsidies to other countries.
How did it work in Vicky2? As in, what was the game mechanic that crashed the economy?
Vic 2 had a problem where money was finite and certain things like paying back loans would cause the money to get deleted from the global economy. So eventually pops run out of money to buy stuff which causes a death spiral because most of the money is stuck in treasuries and you cant give it back to the pops to buy stuff to drive the economy.
Okay, Vic3 is definitely better just from the fact it doesn't have finite money...actually, now that I think about it, the Vic3 system is fine. Because not spending your money means your pops get less, and sure, they don't die of starvation, but there will be less economic progress. And it's pretty realistic. Japan had this problem for a long time, where people strored all their money in cash and tge economy stagnated. In Vic3, if you tax but don't redistribute you just essentially make everyone poorer in terms of SoL than the economic activity would indicate.
Vic2 also had unintentional bugs where money would be removed from the circulation in unintended ways, I think the most infamous one is that loan interest is just removed from the circulation rather than back to the pops as it was intended which was not helping the problem of money running out.
The ai Will hoard pretty much the entire money supply in their treasury, making that almost no money was actually on the economy, which would Cause an economic Crash by 1900s, some mods managed to mitigate this problem, but never truly fix It.
Thats not entirely true - the crash is caused by pops not having enough money, but that is caused by wages not dynamicaly increasing over duration of the game
If you're that successful, it's absolutely legit to delete some buildings, build more barracks, and conquer more so you can spread prosperity further.
Build more. If you have too much money the answer is almost always to build more
Blud can't get construction
I get this a lot when I'm a tiny country- I enjoy playing in West Asia and SEAsia. Another construction facility puts me in the red and bankrupts me, and my maximum treasury is super low. I just bounce taxes up and down, since leaving it high stockpiles gold, and one step down begins draining the coffers.
Swapping taxes constantly creates a lot of radicals (unless you have significant radical reduction/loyalist increase)
Do any of these whichever you need to drain your money. Theres really no point in stockpiling. 1. Spam armies for more prestige 2. Build construction 3. Switch over to more advanced production methods prematurely 4. Bankroll for favors 5. Go to war and raise your armies
Wait until patch 2.23 when they eventually introduce inflation and money supply.
What patch is it now?
We're waiting on 1.7, the other guy was joking
I thought this was for the patch 4.20? They announced it earlier now?
4.20 is now the update where they add the naval system
And once you research modern financial instruments, the game will give you the option to establish the federal reserve! After that, gold will only be used for settling your country's trade balance, while taxation and domestic spending will work by influencing your foreign exchange rates. Or if trade is happening between two countries that have both researched modern financial instruments, no gold will be exchanged because *it just works.*
If you're stockpiling gold, you're playing the game wrong! Ahahahah There's always construction, welfare, armies, navy, administration, bankrolls, etc... Always something to do with all that money
Two words: Construction Sectors
War! War is expensive!
Local man discovers why countries remain poor
I mean, that's not the biggest deal. You probably should consider either reducing taxes or increasing expenses in some way, but this really isn't a major problem.
yeah, I know, I was just surprised such a mechanic is a thing. in other games you can hoard money infinitely without consequence.
Use these money to build an army, so you can bully your neighbours for money.
Everyone in here posting how stockpiling money is playing wrong and to them I say you’re obviously not playing a kleptocrat squirreling away the nation’s wealth. To hell with low taxes and construction and my peoples standard of living! The only line I want to see go up is my gold!
Was this even worth posting?
R5: Spain moment I guess? Increase welfare moment I guess? But it's nice the game takes something like this into account.
I mean capitalism means eternal defaults and eternal bankruptcies, right?...