Every country or geographical region has a population carrying capacity, which if exceeded can lead to economic, environmental and socially unsustainable outcomes. The Greens Party in Australia and I presume in other parts of the world promotes an open borders policy, in relation to immigration. The reason for this contradictary policy is that new class internationalists and social justice advocates in the party out-number the conservationists. In other words the policy exists for purely political reasons, instead of sound environmental reasons.
Why would increase the amount of crime?
You know how increasing major spending always makes public sector happier and bigger, which makes the game easy in the long term, since the big spending also brings big benefits from high productivity. Having a separate public sector pay which is linked in cost to the size of the group, which makes it hard to afford just employing everyone. Also public sector pensions, basically the same idea but delayed a bit.
I would like a series of nationalization policies as well.
But also here’s one thing about crime and drugs. Legalizing drugs is not just legalizing drugs. its also ALL other uses of the drug and it should obviously reduce crime both organized and minor as criminals have far less income from drug sales.
marijuna for example also comes with Hemp. hemp is a major industrial product used for ropes clothes some such and the seeds are utilized to produce a form of oil the seed oil which can be used it is proven to create plastics.
As such legalizing marijuna at least should benefit the GDP. Also marijuna has never been proven to reduce lifespan. and has far less effects on the lungs then say smoking. as a result it should actually be mildly beneficial to the health of a country because less people will smoke cigerets and more will smoke marijuna. also all of the medical uses are then legal.
as such it would be fair to make it beneficial to do so. but also make it highly lower the respect of conservitives and the religious as these two groups tend to hate legalizing any form of drugs.
when it comes to prostitution.
It should reduce crime. and of course if you regulate and keep prostitutes healthy as they do in vega’s or other area’s where its legal a government can make a profit. while ensuring healthy business. This also strangles out all of the gangs and criminals which use sex trades for profit. as such by legalizing both prostitution and drugs most organized crime goes out the window.
Thats really it i mean there is more i could say but i believe this post is large enough.
Thank you for your time and i apologize for my lack of grammar.
Things that I would like change (several have been mentioned so I’m just agreeing):
Legalizing things always reduces crime (especially organized crime) just for the fact that crime means breaking a law and with fewer laws to break crime will go down. It also eliminates the dangerous black market for these things.
The main place I think the game fails is not having private sector take over the government failings. If I greatly reduce road service but also greatly reduce taxes, it’s likely that a business will form to take care of the roads and make a profit.
This is very true, I agree. If I do a sequel to democracy 2, it will address this issue very strongly.
I’d reverse that order, paying the repeal cost for an existing policy in order to unlock a mutually exclusive one. If one starts a game without either policy in place, then the political cost of implementing one would be less than replacing an entrenched policy. However, in some cases, it might make more sense to run a slider from pro- one side to pro- the other, especially if stepwise political-capital pricing is implemented.
On the other hand, some policy swaps could make sense. Replacing one tax with another could cost less political capital than repeal + enactment.
I agree that there should be a few private sector analogs to public services. Otherwise, one is almost forced to adopt socialist policies because there isn’t a private sector to fall back on. The ability of the private sector to deliver to the masses could depend on overall prosperity and productivity. Subsidy policies could exist to bridge the gap between full gov’t control and full laissez faire. I’d especially like to see a “private schools” situation and a tax-credit policy to help the poor pay for them.
Are there price controls in the game? Things like minimum wage, farm price supports, “affordable” housing etc are very popular with the direct beneficiaries. However, they always create surplus or shortage by stepping away from the equilibrium between supply and demand. They also affect the cost of doing business, (e.g. a high sugar price puts a drag on baking and soft drinks).
I saw an earlier complaint on the import tariff. Like a price support, it benefits those who sell the protected good, but it raises costs for all who want to buy it (or anything downstream). Since consumers and exports are downstream of everything else in the model, they always suffer most from import tariffs.
On the dead-horse of gun control: “Guns floating around” deter confrontational crimes like robbery, but criminals turn to non-confrontational crimes like theft (taking your stuff while you’re not looking).
When drug/alcohol prohibition creates a black market opportunity, organized crime isn’t the only “beneficiary”. Terrorist and revolutionary groups also find new sources of funds.
The Hospital overcrowding situation is messed up. “Overcrowding” is synonymous with “shortage”. A shortage arises when price is forced below equilibrium between supply and demand. People consume more than they would if they had to pay full price, and businesses supply less than they would if they could charge more.
In the case of health care, patients are largely insulated against discretionary cost, so they consume more than they probably need. Whether suppliers meet that demand depends on the system. In the US, providers can still charge full price with somebody paying the difference (sometimes taxpayers, sometimes patients via prepaid “insurance”). As a consequence, the US spends more per capita on health care than any other country in the world, and that itself is a problem (but not overcrowding).
By contrast, we see overcrowding / waiting lists etc in countries with socialized medicine but an unwillingness to pay as much as people are able to consume. We don’t see that in the US (yet)… except at veterans hospitals run by (you guessed it) the US government.
In my own game, I have changed the contribution of State Health Service thus: “StateHealthService,0.1-(0.1*x)”. The effect is that state health service will create overcrowding unless it is fully funded. The other salutary effects of state health remain as positive as ever, but it must be maximally funded to avoid overcrowding.
Maried tax alowance is free money and it make parents conservatives and religious happy. Why liberals arent angry? Its free money in the game which i dont like.
Conservatives should care about narcotics IMO
Road building; decreasing it to lowest levels makes GDP lower, because good roads are good for transport etc.
With D3 announced, it might be time to warm up this thread (at least until a specific D3 forum is created).
Thinking way outside the box: Can D3 integrate a more sophisticated formula parser so we can get beyond the rigid “# + (# * x)” format?
ha, ironically I just added that to the code a few hours ago. currently it now supports
val op (val op val)
val op ((val op val) op val)
and also supports other named values as being vals, so rather than just ‘x’ you can have ‘literacy’ for example. That adds a lot of flexibility
I know this is a bit late (by a few years), but I just discovered this game a little bit ago. Great job with it first off! I really hope you make a 3rd one at some point, I am sure there is quite a bit of new inspiration in the events of the past four years. I did want to throw some thoughts out there (just in case you do)
Capitalism struck me as rather strange… there were not many game controls to support it (while supporting other things). I tried to run a game through capitalism but it seemed like the only thing to do (aside from a few measures) was to refuse to get involved with the game / try to not pass anything. Small government is of course an aspect of some views of capitalism, but in game where your only interaction is to be the government… kind of comes down to just clicking ‘next’ a lot and hoping the market sorts its self out. And there are measures out there to help capitalism along, places the government can and does get involved to regulate business and monopolies (capitalism does not mean rule-by-corporation, though that is certainly also an interesting concept). Including something like that might balance things along a little bit? For example, removing moral / religious control from influencing a company (or adding it to go the other way), providing government discoveries to the highest bidder (as many govt do with military research going into the private sector), focusing government purchases to products made by local companies (small business vs. capitalism), control over tax exemptions to make sure the company is located/active/producing jobs in the country, treatment of the company as an a person vs. an organization with people in it, providing tax benefits to companies that spend a portion of their income on charitable / social institutions / retirement / health care, oversight to ensure honest and healthy competition, law enforcement forces dedicated to protecting companies / individuals from fraud / corporate espionage / piracy and copyright infringement, etc. So basically I think capitalism would be a way to play the game (take action in order to elicit a response from the game) in a way that is supportive rather than dictatorial. The few measures that are in place right now (like consumer protection) are all just really focused on the negative ways that a government can cater to companies over the good of the people.
Religion. Very sticky point of course, and you did a good job covering it without playing favorites. The first thing that struck me a bit was that there was only one religion. I am not saying play PR for the whole world, but given the number of countries where many follow others of the main faiths… seemed like a lost opportunity to add depth. A lot of other religions have their own problems to contend with - like do you allow the sale of beef in a country that is primarily Hindu? Do you regulate licenses for Kosher food like some countries do? Internal religious violence when you have two contending religions with strong followings? And so on. Not only that, but many of those other religions have extra or less penalties from things like drugs and prostitution. A Muslim country would quickly move against a leader that legalized prostitution, while the Hindus and Buddhists in a country might not feel terribly impacted by it - but Buddhists might feel stronger about extra spending to the military. The second thing was education / persecution. I get that a lot of groups feel persecuted if they don’t get their way in everything (or if their way is not imposed on everyone else). Taking a religion out of school having the effect of no one following that religion seemed a bit of an over-step. All the religions were being taught long before kids were going to school, and they have other avenues of being offered - like church and homes. There are certainly ways to bring a religion down (and I’d love to see them in the game - actually removing tax-exempt status, regulating them, actual crack downs like in some communist nations, teaching secularism, promoting an opposite religion, etc), but taking it out of a secular institution having the effect of bringing down an entire faith…? There are also ways to help religion without hurting everyone else (except maybe capitalists) - tax exempt status for charitable institutions (with added benefit of helping the poor without significantly countering free-market), providing zoning for worship where other businesses cannot be built (ranging from ‘its fine to build the strip club across from the church’ to ‘if a town has a church, you can’t sell alcohol within that district!’), religious holidays (from enforced ‘you will give them Christmas off’ to floating ‘you will give employees X days off for their particular religion or vacation if they are secular’), right to gather (‘you can worship anywhere, anytime, including in government buildings’ to ‘you can do it in public spaces that don’t impede traffic’ to ‘only in designated areas for your religion, such as church’), rights to enforce religion in a public business (‘you can choose to only hire people of your faith and force them to pray with you’ to ‘only recognized religious institutions are allowed to discriminate in hiring’ to the very strict ‘you cannot discriminate in hiring your staff aside from those directly involved in the religious aspect of your organization’), right to express religious belief in free-market behavior (‘judges can display their faith and make religion-based decisions over people of different faiths’ to ‘if you don’t believe in condoms you can deny them to those who need them even if you are working in a pharmacy’ to ‘if you are acting in a public non-religious role, you cannot impose your religious views on others’) and so on. Lots of fertile ground for both removing religion from a country, to promoting a religion over others, to allowing religious freedom while separating it from the state.
I really like that you can legalize some of the sticky debate points (prostitution, gambling, drugs), and that they do not have auto-fails built in for following through on that. There are a lot of groups fighting for stuff like that (swopusa, iusw, various green movements, etc) and its nice that you can try the game with or against the ideas. The drugs one does seem like it has a bit of a failure-point - if you legalize everything you automatically get a lot of social issues, with no alternatives for controlling them / bringing them down. I am not sure I completely agree with that. Just because something becomes legal does not mean a significant number of people begin to do it (I know plenty of people who enjoy drugs, have access to all of them, and 99% have very clear personal lines of ‘I am ok with doing x and y but I will never touch z because I have done my homework’), or that health education and regulation cannot provide some control (though that of course would take more money). And I agree with some of the earlier points that there would be a bit more impact than just pleasing liberals - I could see all three of those having some impact on finances (all of this becomes taxable, and it is a large sector whether it is legal or not) and providing jobs. Prostitution and drugs though would increasing the chance of disease (requiring more funding for good healthcare and health education), though would lower crime. Gambling seems pretty accurate, increasing organized crime but providing more financial gain to the state. Overall happiness would likely be affected by the makeup of the country - anyone religious (well… depending on the religion actually. ok, most big western religions) or conservative would be unhappy with this, anyone secular or liberal might become happier (most people like having choices, though parents may worry more about their kids). All of these would increase tourism, but may hurt international relations in the process. If you want to add something in this area, pornography is coming to the forefront again in 2012-2013, with California trying to regulate pornography out of LA with barrier-protection laws (you have to use everything from condoms - which consumers don’t purchase movies of - to surgical gloves), to Iceland trying to outright ban porn as we speak. Same considerations as prostitution (but without the health impact if health education / healthcare are not provided) - ban = moves into fueling crime (prohibition style), violent crime (no outlet for basic need), makes conservatives / western-religious happy, legal = fuels economy, jobs, makes conservatives / western-religious unhappy, internet crime can cut into profits / undercut this industry. (btw, all of these I think would make capitalists happy since it is free-enterprise with government oversight)
The space program was wonderful thing to shoot for, until you got there. Once you got there it had no real benefit (especially with education maxed out), it was just a drain. I suppose in a way that can be accurate, but it could / should have an ongoing boost a lot of other sectors including business / capitalism (a lot of products on the market today were discovered via the space program), education (inspiring students), and international support (countries with space programs tend to look better). Maybe I was just missing it though. You could also incorporate the capitalism version of the space program - which is what the US has moved to now. Provide tax benefits / bonuses to companies that pursue space technology (such as the Ansari X Prize). Right now it just feels like a bit of a let-down when you get there and then have to scale back your expectations
The international front was a bit overlooked in this game. I can see that getting way too complicated of course, but it may be worth pursuing more. Perhaps the effects of tourism (to the country and from) would be somewhat simple to add? And perhaps international opinion vs. freedeom of local press? (Adding in local press too, controlled press will tell everyone that we are liked everywhere and are the greatest, free press would cause international opinion to matter more while patriotism would make us ignore international opinion anyway)
Middle income earners - this was one of the strangest ones / hardest for me to get to grips with. A lot of things affect this group (crime, education, etc) but the negative policies (taxes) overwhelmed just about everything else. It seems like there would be a few more controls to reach this group, or that the overall status would affect them more - if you have no crime, great education for kids, low prices, strong economy, good home prices, and an average tax rate, I would expect this group to be in the green? And dropping taxes below a certain point would actually increase happiness - if nothing else then because they can look at other countries and go ‘wow, we rock’. No one likes taxes, but there is a point where most people accept them as part of daily life / something they can overlook.
Environment - this was handled wonderfully - but after the environment is set up, some of the funding that went into that could start adding a bit to the GDP via exports? So govt funds green technology, and then green technology gets sold to other countries for a profit. Alternatively could go the other way, where environment has a stronger impact / more random events (you already have some of this in place as +/-). Right now we have water conservation in place all over because of rapidly rising temperatures (in oregon they are having to cut water for irrigation, negatively impacting farmers, to ensure everyone has water to drink), other places are working on how they will handle the quickly rising water levels (some countries are starting to preemptively build houses on stilts, Manhattan will likely be under water unless the US puts a damn in place, london)… You could either add these effects if the environment is not improved, or some of it will happen anyway and you have to deal with it - because even though you made sure your air was breathable, it doesn’t change the damage done by the country next to you… unless you add something in foreign policy for that. You can also add effects from some of the negative actions you have to take - like if you allow homogeneous foods to dominate the market you will make capitalists happy but you may have to deal with the outcome of Ireland’s potato famine (caused by having a single type of potato grown virtually exclusively) and hurt organic farmers and regular farmers (who have to submit to the bigger companies or get sued out of existence - ie all the lawsuits by Monsanto vs well… everyone). If you ban them completely then your food stuff will be more expensive to produce / fight off pests, reducing your growth / profits from that area.
Terrorism - I like that you added that in there, along with the causes for it, though I found it a little strange that it was being handled by the military and not the police / organized crime / local enforcement groups. The military would certainly deal with terrorism in terms of concentrated groups (unless it was not allowed to operate within the country without special dispensation, like in the US), but assassinations and bombings performed internally would be handled by law enforcement normally - generally a specialized branch of counter-terrorism. The local version of the ‘secret police’ does a lot of that in many countries. This though would leave the military as somewhat useless in the game (since there is no war in the game, which would be a whole other can of worms), though military would affect international perception of a country. You tend to get the better end of a negotiating table when you tank is much bigger than their stick… unless you try to use the tank, at which point it kind of goes the other way. So military could affect that, and also special events like incursions, high-seas piracy, smuggling (into your country if you made things illegal), organized terrorism (if you let it get that bad / assuming you have a control over it). It may also be good to actually add terrorism as a red bubble like organized crime - maybe a local bubble under enforcement, or a bubble in the international area for the stuff that the military handles. Could even add extradition and international police cooperation (decreasing patriotism to some extent, promoting capitalism via copyright enforcement, decreased by status of drugs, increasing control over organized crime)
Patriotism does not have a lot of handles at the moment, but there are things that help it - such as patriotic national holidays (small negative impact on capitalism, but one day isn’t a big deal), PR (government influence or outright control over media sources, decreased by internet freedom), state of the country vs the world (if no one is at least Trying to get here illegally, maybe we are doing something wrong. what’s so special about that other country anyway, why don’t refugees like us?), monuments (space program, national museums, internationally recognized libraries and museums), low surveillance (in freedom-based countries anyway, being watched in your back-yard by a police drone is usually a no-no for the government, ditto for wire-tapping without a license, etc).
On the dead-horse of gun control… urgh. Can’t go right or wrong with that one. No-guns allowed (including police not carrying guns, except for special units) leads to less firearms violence (firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population in one year - washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor … the-world/ ). Soooo my only suggestion would be that firearm related violent crime goes up if guns are illegal (people can’t defend themselves) but provided by strong organized crime, down a bit if people can defend themselves. But not too down, since they start shooting each other in arguments, like what happened in texas with the guy that ‘accidentally’ shot an escort for not having sex with him). If guns are both illegal and not available to most criminals (little to no organized crime, and not carried by police), and very harsh penalties if you use a gun during a criminal act, then crime goes way down. So to expand on that suggestion, perhaps the trick is to separate out ‘crime’ from ‘accidental deaths’ since a lot of the deaths caused by guns in RTC areas are not crime (crime is arguably brought down a bit because the person may have a gun), but disputes gone wrong / crimes of passion (where fists would not have led to a death in the heat of the moment), tie it more to organized crime, and add a bubble for ‘penalty for using guns in a criminal act’ (like increased penalties for accidents when there is alcohol involved).
Agree with the earlier post on bad roads decreasing GDB since they are needed for transport
Anyway, [EDIT: Just saw that you are working on DM3! WOOT!] Can’t wait to buy it
Because your post was long and covered many topics, I’m going to write multiple replies…
I’ve seen this observation come up elsewhere. If a “capitalism” scenario is written for D3, then perhaps it can start in an imperfect (mixed) state. Then, instead of enacting new policies like in other scenarios, we would repeal our predecessors’ old bad policies. The scenario then becomes an interesting change of pace with plenty to do.
If we’re going to analyze the politics of religion, then the first thing that each of us needs to clarify in our own minds is the distinction between religion as “belief-system” and religion as “church-organization”. Belief systems infuse the electorate with priorities, codes of conduct etc. Church organizations are, well, organizations.
Churches that wade into politics may start out with the most noble of intentions, but most that taste power and influence end up being corrupted by it. This can lead to startling divergence between the political effects of a belief system and the church that supposedly espouses those beliefs.
My observation has been that violence stems “from religion” mainly when there is government power attached to it or sought (i.e. when winners gain privileges and/or losers are oppressed).
Different countries will have different levels of tolerance, different levels of formal religious influence in government etc. Though it’s hard for Americans to wrap their heads around it, Iran is both theocratic and democratic. Maybe Iran would be good teaching scenario.
Agreed. American public schools arose in the 19th century as an explicit reaction against the floods of Roman Catholics from places like Ireland and Italy. They were deliberately designed as overtly protestant institutions of inculcation, and they ran that way for over 100 years, but America still has Roman Catholics. Not only that, but because private Catholic schools are so much better than America’s Soviet-style public schools, many non-religious families now send their kids to “Catholic school”.
In a country where public schools are so secular that they’re even somewhat hostile toward religious expression, both religionists and capitalists could be pleased by privatization of education supported by subsidy and/or tax credit. Each religionist could take the money to a school of their own favorite religious flavor, and capitalists could make profits by providing many flavors.