I would also like to see all minor effects modeled in the game, but this does not seem like a development priority, as there are major effects which remain unmodeled in the current version. It would also increase the opacity of the game, as ideas for new proposals show their effects on terms of “increase” or “decrease” but do not display magnitude.
I originally suggested that they display magnitude, but it was pointed out that this would hugely decrease the learning curve, and hence engagement with the game. This makes sense in a way, but if this opacity is to be maintained, it would only be increased by the modeling of highly marginal effects.
The costs of rare earth extraction should be highly variable depending on country, but these may also be difficult to model. It is highly likely that prospecting for rare earth minerals has not been seriously undertaken by many countries. Japan is fully economically integrated into the United States and so may be content to rely on the assumption that the United States will inevitably secure its rare earth minerals to the necessary extent, and inevitably share those with Japan to support its regional trading partner and vassal state ally.
Therefore, Japan has little incentive to even prospect for rare earth minerals, and it is possible that, if for some reason they decided to attempt to extract rare earth minerals, they would make an investment in prospecting which has not yet made, and discover a more efficient source of them in their highly mountainous country than what has been hither-to discovered.
This same logic applies to all EU countries - as long as the EU as a block has the ability to produce or import rare earth minerals, no individual vassal of the union has an incentive to even prospect for rare earth minerals to the extent necessary to discover extraction prices so that they may be modeled in the game. I support sending game developers out into the Alps to dig around for rare earth minerals in order to more accurately model the potential costs of German rare earth mineral extraction, but this is probably a very low priority for game development.
Most of the world seems content to import these resources from China. China, and now the United States, seem to have an incentive to extract these for reasons which are primarily geopolitical / security related and not economic, and the rest of the world seems content to depend on these superpowers.
Rare Earth Mineral Crisis
In light of these discoveries, it seems to me that the “Rare Earth Mineral Crisis” is a fake emergency. It could be an emergency for the United States, if it had poor relations with China, but then it would be solved at a trivial cost, and in the real world, is already being solved at a trivial cost.
For any of the economic partners (The UK, maybe France) or vassals (maybe France, definitely every other playable country in this version) of the United States, their governments should assume that they will never have a rare earth mineral crisis, because if they were to have such a crisis, the United States would solve it for them at a trivial cost in order to support its partner/vassals. Even low “international relations” would not affect this, as these would simply be poor relations with countries outside of the NATO/EU block.
Saudi Arabia and Israel are both examples of countries with very poor “international relations” due to kinetic disputes with their immediate neighbors and questionable to flagrant abuses of basic human rights, but this does not significantly alter the commitment of the United States to its economic and military interests in the region, and therefore even these countries can reasonably expect to be supported by the United States in terms of rare earth mineral extraction, if ever the Chinese were to particularly care about their international reputation, which they clearly do not.
Foreign Relations and International Reputation
To this point, the game seems to consolidate the concepts of “Foreign Relations” and “International Reputation” into one game variable, called “Foreign Relations.” In reality, these two variables are mostly independent. Foreign relations are primarily driven by economic and security concerns, whereas international reputation is driven by the perception of human rights abuses, democracy and so on.
The United States drone strike policy, and a theoretical border wall policy, do and would drastically impact their “International Reputation”, which may at most impact tourism. I am not even certain about this relationship. I cannot quickly find a graph of US tourism per year, but I strongly suspect that, if examined, it would show no significant change for 2003, the year of the invasion of Iraq, which greatly impacted their international reputation.
These policies do not, and would not, affect their access to international trade and foreign investment. Joe Biden could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone, and the United States would not lose any trade or investment. People get money by being exclusively concerned about money, and people and States with enough money to engage in trade and investment are generally not concerned about shootings on fifth avenues.
Tourism, Gambling, GDP and Employment
“The U.S. travel and tourism industry generated over $1.6 trillion in economic output in 2017, supporting 7.8 million U.S. jobs.”
In retrospect, it appears that the employment effects of Tourism are marginal, but the profits are significant, and so it is accurately modeled by the game to the extent that the game is not trying to model very marginal effects on the magnitude of the DEA.
Wikipedia also states that the Gambling industry employs 1.7 million people in the United States, and so it appears that this is inaccurately modeled in the game. In the game, it reduces unemployment, however the real industry appears to be far below the employment threshold required to be modeled. It reports a 92 billion profit. If all of this profit were from the gambling of tourists, then the game would be accurate in modeling it as an increase of GDP.
However, this may be inaccurate, because domestic gambling does not produce any goods or services in the sense of real GDP, and simply circulates money. Gambling is effectively a private taxation industry, which imposes a regressive tax on the domestic population, reducing their disposable income. Hence, any direct profits generated from domestic gambling are offset by the reduction in disposable income which would have gone to other sectors of domestic consumption. Domestic gambling is a private tax bureau, not a real productive industry.
I cannot find any data on the percentage of foreign tourist contributions to the profits of the Gambling industry. This would be the only part of the industry which would increase “paper” GDP, since in this special case, it would be imposing its regressive tax on foreigners, thereby increasing the total money available within the economy, as opposed to simply circulating it.