Keynes, stateownership, fringes plus some


#1

First of all. I really enjoy this game, and have a lot of fun testing it out. Applying theories and seeing how it plays out. UI etc is mostly good, and most policies ties well into each other in regard to checks and balances. I still take the freedom to propose a few thing that could be added to more fully provide a blend of the options we have.
Suggestion: Keynsianism
I assume most know the details, but in short: It is the state investing directly in the market to counter an economic downturn or crisis. Standard macroeconomics. The policy is widely used in socialdemocratic nations. As a downturn sets in the nation may spend its savings to counter this, ie build schools, infrastructure etc. It costs a lot, but keeps people off of welfare and reduces the drop in GDP some.
Would work out like this:
Gives a boost to GDP regardless of timing of implementation. Takes at least a few quarters to kick in. If applied inside a recession it decrease the recessions increase of unemployment. Keeps jobs alive.
Anger/dislike by capitalist, wealthy who sees it as messing up the market. Favoured by unions, stateemployed, socialists. To prevent this policy from becoming an overpowered boost to economy in general some punitive measures has to be attached: If applied outside of a downturn it will increase GDP, but the added demand in the market calls for increased immigration and inflation. Thus it adds to the unskilled workers dilemma as well as uncompetitive dilemma if applied at the wrong time.
I feel that it is too few options to counter a financial crisis outside of dropping taxes.

Suggestion: Add state ownership.
States have a various degree of companies they own. Airports, rails, companies etc. To some groups ( socialist, stateemployed ) etc this a sound investment of tax money to secure national interests in supply of work, safe infrastructure etc , to others ( capitalist, liberals, wealthy ) this a meddling in the market which they dislike.
This option could work out in various ways. In an economic downturn a reduction in ownership would be a quick infusion of cash, with added cheers from capitalists and wealthy. They view stateproperty as a potential income if it is sold to private investors. A downsale would trigger a boost in GDP, while also in unemployment as the new owners try to downsize to increase profits. At the same time not selling out by the state in a downturn is a way of countering the crisis. You keep the people employed at the cost of their wages instead if having them unemployed.
The amount of stateownership is an important divider between left and right and changes on the slider should be represented in the voters opinions.

Suggestion: 100% tax on higher salaries
Already implemented in real life in France. Other parties around the world fiddles with the idea. Idea is to decrease inequlality by cutting of high income salaries for CEO’s, as well as increase investment in own company as it does not pay off to turn company profit into high income salary. Favored by the left as they see high salaries to bosses as exploitation of the workers. Add a policy and slider that sets the limit. Effects would be a slight drop in GDP due to less money used to invest. Does not hurt businesses in general, it is a salarytax, not a companytax. At the same time equality should rise and the proper votergroups should like/dislike the policy.
This is a harder policy than High Capital Gains, and should be weighted accordingly

Suggestion: Nerf the socialists!
Here is the case. I represent a party in Norway called Rødt. It is a radical, democratic socialistparty, not a socialdemocratic party. Think of it as Marxist-Socialists. We stand for an anitcapitalist approach to economy ( marx’s critics of capitalism, classwar. ) High focus on equality ( Tax the rich to lift the poor, proper education and welfare to lift the poor to middleincome ), workers rights, pro-union, strong welfare state, against private schools and hospitals, reduced to no growth due to finite resources in the world, 6-hours a day in a 5 day workweek, pull the plug on NATO and EFTA-membership and then make tradeagreements with EU. A greener industry, reduced dependency on oil ( Peak Oil ) etc.
When I implement the politics of Rødt I get a too positive response from the group called socialst. By the size they hold in the demographics in the game they should be socialdemocrats. They respond way to well to a more leftist approach than they should. Rødt/marxistsocialists and the socialdemocrats share most values, but it is quite a clear distinction how far to the left and right the two would go in the policies. Socialdemocrats should be more eager to have a mixed economy with free market with added state regulations. They are spilt in the EFTA issue and would not scrap NATO. In short: Nerf and tweak the socialist in the game to socialdemocrats and rename them socialdemocrats. Because right now I can pull the politics far too much to the left without loosing their support simply because it seems they have nowhere to go. NATOexit simulated by cutting militaryspending, and that shouldn’t go down so easy with the socialdemocrats

Suggestion: Add the fringes of politics
Ties in with the nerf the socialists suggestion. Add MarxistSocialist as described in the chapter above on the leftfringe, but also add Populist Right on the fringe on the right side. By populist right I don’t mean the facist-style Jobbik of Hungary, but the lower taxes, higher pensions, close to xenophobic, law and order for the bandits and less law for ordinary people, patriotic nationalistic likes of USA Tea Party, Jorg Heider in Austria, Marie Le Pen in France and SverigeDemokraterna of Sweden as well as Norways FrP. A mixed bag of populist right parties which could be tied up into one fringe group.
Keep up the good work!!!


#2

Thanks, there has been some discussion of more nationalisation/privatisation options, but nobody can agree on the economic impact, see here:
positech.co.uk/cliffsblog/2013/0 … ndustries/


#3

I really like the Ideas of Ali-Asad on the Blog on indirect effects on GDP and more randomness.