you are right that the pro-science policies are too positive. Anyone got good suggestions for negative effects? or are they just too cheap? / quick?
I was actually being pretty serious with my above suggestions. 
Statistics seem to prove the theory out, with ever-falling numbers of science students over the past decade or more.
I agree they could do with slowing down, though - I cannot see why creationism in particular affects science so quickly (or religious membership, for that matter - this seems to be far too easy a way of getting rid of religious voters). For children to filter through school, then possibility university before entering the workplace, would take a few years.
Zild; correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Cliffski; maybe you could just make them more expensive and slower to work. For example, and this may go for other things as well, you should probably face an election before the policies begin to take affect.
Rissen: my evidence may be pretty much anecdotal, but yours is non-existant. Rather than simply refuting what others have to say, why not try providing a reasoned argument with an explanation or even evidence of your own? Since you seem so set against my suggestion…
basically when university isnt free, people do courses that get them jobs. But what jobs are available depends upon the economy. If you have tax breaks and grants for tech companies then there will be many tech jobs, so that would mean that lowering university grants would mean mroe people doing tech courses?
The game is simplified because literacy is not broken down. People with degrees in media studies count for the same as degrees in biochemistry in the land of Democracy 2.
You would need to model the different sectors of the economy and their demand/ supply of workers to handle it. That could actually be pretty interesting to do, because if demand > supply for low skilled jobs, you would get low skilled immigration, and vice versa, which has all sorts of different effects.
Apologies, I did not mean to come off so aggressively. I have, however, suggested that cost and time may be increased, simply because cost is usually the biggest argument against government spending, and time is usually the biggest deterrent to government spending.
Cliffski; I will always say ‘yes, do it’ to a more complex economy model. What your argument basically sums up to is ‘if you subsidise a certain course more than other courses, more people will want to do it’ which I would agree with.
Thanks, Rissen, and I’m sorry too.
If anybody in the UK caught the news this morning and last night about cuts to physical science spending, then the subject of education funding seems rather topical at the moment!
So far, all of the education policies seem to suggest science (except those at school-level, where there is no distinction) - stem cell research (biology), electron microscopes / particle accelerators (physics), creationism (biology)… Perhaps it would be worth diversifying these subjects a little more? Maybe International Development (which is also nice for Socialists), Foreign Languages (which could contribute to the Brain Drain), Media Studies (increase voter cycnism or affect voter turnout, maybe?! 
)
It’s interesting that you suggest splitting the economy, Cliffski. It is also interesting to note that some areas are already represented - there are a number of policies and dilemnas that affect the Internet and Tourism ratings, for instance, and I imagine those would fall into any segmented economy.
Other areas that might be worth adding could be Creative Industry or Arts (I heard the other day that this now accounts for 7% of the UK’s industry), High Tech (computers, automated manufacturing - which could reduce working week but also slash employment) and Finance (this could increase air travel, if London is anything to go by, with workers commuting in from Spain every day/week; possibly with a bonus for becoming the financial capitol of the world, like London currently and New York before it). I imagine there should also be a General Industry, plus possibly separate Retail. Should Construction / Manufacturing play a part? (By that, I mean industry devoted to making manufacturing facilities or constructing new buildings, be they for business, residential or public use? Many policies could affect this, such as increasing funding for social housing, prisons, schools, hospitals, not to mention the status of the other industries…)
I could see this becoming much harder for the player (which is a good thing, right?! 
), having to maintain constant levels in each industry. A sudden cut in public spending could seriously damage the Construction industry, whilst a sudden splurge may cost a lot more (to entice more people into the industry quickly) or a sudden jump in immigration of workers with the necessary skills…
I wonder, is there already a way to implement the effects skills shortages in the game?
Was a wrong idea
And another idea that i have … 
Why don’t create a policy called “Political cost cap” where you must have a lot of political power to apply it, but it cut a little bit of the gobal expendure.
I like the idea of arts funding. Liberals tend to approve of such things It could boost the GDP AND annoy conservatives at the same time
Some conservatives. 
Quite a few conservatives like arts funding, since it provides entertainment that 1) promotes nationalist sentiment, 2) appeals to the wealthy, who collect and support the arts, and 3) makes them look good as community sponsors. For example, when I was working at a public radio station near Raleigh, North Carolina, about 15 years ago, one of our most zealous patrons was the infamous Senator Jesse Helms, an arch-conservative with an enormous amount of power. The sponsors list for any establishment arts facility/production is rife with the names of the wealthy and conservative, as well as the wealthy and liberal.
Good point. here in the UK, the government sponsors opera. Which is a bit iffy as only about 0.5% of the population ever go to the opera, and that tends to be the wealthiest. I guess it would be doable to have a number of arts sponsorship policies, for different areas. hmmmmmmmmmm.
Poor Cliffski, you seem to be faced with an endless amount of policies to implement.
I just did a long playthrough, to test the imbalances caused by a fix for the ministers bug and I’ve come to a few conclusions on some potential tweaks. Let me know what people think of these:
Air quality is too easy to fix. the policies that improve it are too effective and easy.
The market meltdown isn’t enough of a big deal, and should be more severe.
Small business grants are too good value for money, with no downside.
Should legal aid annoy conservatives? (in that its subsidising evil thieves and criminals from our taxes etc)
Thoughts?
I agree, air quality is easily fixed, as is unemployment by small business grants and rural development grants. I haven’t had a market meltdown yet. As for legal aid, conservatives are annoyed at any perceived spending of “their taxes” on anything that does not directly benefit them.
Agreed and I expected a higher price for the science funding, more around the small business cost.
interesting… cool avatar btw
Some possible effects for legalizing prostitution:
Slightly lower crime rates (obvious)
Slight boost to GDP (presumably from taxation)
Slight increase in lifespan (in Nevada, they must be tested for STDs monthly)
Liberals happier
Religious, conservatives, parents unhappier
Lonely guys very happy indeed
Some possible education ideas:
An initative to boost science and math, especially among women and minorities
Segregation (racial tension, lower education quality)
Home schooling (legal or no - parents, religious, conservatives, liberals, state employees would have opinions)
Energy ideas:
Windmills (environmentalists like, wealthy and capitalist wouldn’t)
Solar panels (expensive, lowers oil demand, cleaner energy)
Hydro (maybe a scenario like Three Gorges where lots of energy, but it displaces entire towns)
I lumped all of the renewable energy techs into the clean energy subsidies by default. It would be nice to break it down more, at the risk of cluttering things up.
Segregation can not only be applied to education, there are cases where people from different ethnical groups live apart from the autochtonal population. I think it should rather be put under law and order with different levels from working & educating apart, to housing apart, to not being allowed to use the same public services.