More State-Run Businesses

[Nimrod]

Going for all out Socialism/Communism is a bit tricky economy-wise.

I feel there needs to be quite a few more state run businesses and whatnot to alleviate unemployment and boost GDP.

State postal service, state rail companies, state TV, TV licenses, government owned electricity, gas, oil etc.

Hell, going full Communism would be amazing, with implementing your own currency and whatnot.

Also I’m surprised inflation, and minting isn’t part of the game. Would that be too complicated to implement?

[cliffski]

I took the view that inflation would be more complexity than it was worth…
I agree that there should be scope for more state-run businesses. Right now we have a default option of state-subsidised rail, but no private railways independent of the state (for example).
I’m not sure you can neccesarily argue that state ownership of some of these would automatically boost GDP. For example, the state owning the postal service (or not) is unlikely to affect overall GDP, just who is paying the salaries of the postal workers, unless you argue that a state system is more efficient because it’s a natural monopoly maybe?

Along similar lines, there isn’t currently provision in the game for state telecoms or water companies, which is a similar issue. Obviously nationalised industries of that sort would be popular with socialists and less with capitalists, but would there be any effect on GDP? I’m not sure how it would really work, in terms of nationalizing an existing industry. I should read up on how it was done

[Nimrod]

@cliffski

I took the view that inflation would be more complexity than it was worth…
I agree that there should be scope for more state-run businesses. Right now we have a default option of state-subsidised rail, but no private railways independent of the state (for example).
I’m not sure you can neccesarily argue that state ownership of some of these would automatically boost GDP. For example, the state owning the postal service (or not) is unlikely to affect overall GDP, just who is paying the salaries of the postal workers, unless you argue that a state system is more efficient because it’s a natural monopoly maybe?

Along similar lines, there isn’t currently provision in the game for state telecoms or water companies, which is a similar issue. Obviously nationalised industries of that sort would be popular with socialists and less with capitalists, but would there be any effect on GDP? I’m not sure how it would really work, in terms of nationalizing an existing industry. I should read up on how it was done

How would it effect GDP? Good question, I’m not quite sure really, but your country would certainly be more self-sufficient, presuming that international trade adds to your GDP, your nationalised corporations would trade with the rest of the world etc.

Unfortunately I am not an economist, just a socialist So GDP and whatnot takes a bit for me to wrap my head around, but I’m sure having lots of nationalised businesses does not have a severely negative impact on your GDP.

I will look into it more too!

[cliffski]

I’ve asked an open question on my blog here:
positech.co.uk/cliffsblog/2013/0 … ndustries/
On this topic. I’m really not sure what the GDP impact is, although with banking I think it’s likely to be a bit negative, but nobody really knows. We have no good modern before/after test cases that I know of.

[Nimrod]

@cliffski

I’ve asked an open question on my blog here:
positech.co.uk/cliffsblog/2013/0 … ndustries/
On this topic. I’m really not sure what the GDP impact is, although with banking I think it’s likely to be a bit negative, but nobody really knows. We have no good modern before/after test cases that I know of.

Thanks mate! It will definately required more work on your behalf, but it was something that stood out to me so far playing the beta.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nationalisation-pushes-debt-to-100-per-cent-of-gdp-960334.html

Saw this after some searching, so nationalising banks has a big impact on GDP, but no mention of nationalised businesses. Then again, the Independent is a Liberal paper, it’s going to be biased.

[Nimrod]

Started a thread about nationalisation and GDP on the political board on 4chan, yes 4chan, so far one reply.

It depends on what they are.

State owned infrastructure increases GDP by providing a higher quality of service throughout the nation and making it cheaper to develop new areas.

For instance building a new housing area under nationalised gas in the UK was cheaper as the cost to hook the houses up to the gas line was considerably cheaper than it is today. So cheap in fact that it was well within the reach of the common man no matter where in the country his house was built.

On top of that nationalised infrastructure provides greater capacity for travel enabling your customers to come from further away and allowing your business to ship larger amounts of goods with ease.

[MartinF]

When governments nationalize Industries (and pays for it)

They usually reduce prices - so a negative effect poverty and so on…
The capitalist are angry/ socialists are happy.
The monetary costs are usually high but a one off.
They tend to not pick up on innovations as quickly so a negative effect on tech in game.

The GDP and running costs are tricky.
Some governments use state companies as a income source - socialist/communist countries rely almost entirely on this (or at least much more than taxes).
Here we would see minus GDP, but plus income for the state.
Others invest heavily or subsidize prices - this has a positive GDP impact but running costs.

Maybe you could implements nationalized industries and the slider represents high-low investment/subsidizing
The effects on capitalist, socialist and the negative tech fairly could be constant, but the cost and GDP impact would change.
The poor would start out with a positive opinion of the policy (balanced), but incomes and to a lesser degree opinion would change depending on the slider.
Nationalizing banks could work with similar mechanics but the slider would effect the wealthy, self employed and GDP more.

Theoretically it would also balance the highs and lows of the economy out a little.It should reduce trade and trade reliance.
Im not sure how to implement these two.

I hope this helps.