I feel like the cost and or revenue of state water industry, electricity and telecoms should take into account the size of said industry. But, right now, state industry “replace” the industry in such sectors, which make no sense. Even if I have a large public energy industry, if I went all in with energetic sobriety and so on, the size and cost of this industry should be affected.
In a similar fashion, having a massive internet usage might have a problematic effect on your state telecom company (at the highest fundings which, if I understand correctly, basically mean somewhat free service for the user (no way it costs so much otherwise).
It may also be worth noting that while state enterprise doesn’t aim to be overtly competative as a private company would, they still purchase equipment and services. Arguably a well-funded division would stimulate the technology market more than a by-the-books provider only concerned with their bottom line.
There’s a reason the subsidisation and nationalisation of rail in the East leads the world with record breaking maglev trains, while the free market proves the unprofitability of rail leading to late/no trains in the west.
Granted, but so is the expectation that the free market can provide for all, and that high-end state infrastructure results in corruption.
This game is chiefly about entertaining the expectations of our politics by balancing placation with realism, and I get the impression around half the players are finna slam dunk that left bottom compass corner.
Except that (insofar as your example is concerned) nationalised industries do actually have increased exposure to corruption risk according to that aforementioned analysis (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Are-state-owned-companies-more-exposed-to-risk-%3A-a-Bach-Helgesen/972fdbda7c1d1e8b2a5cab72e6b7fec1038295bc?p2df), which according to that analysis you counter with explicit anti-corruption and transparency measures, much like in the game. I can’t speak to free market fundamentalism in general, except to note that I don’t subscribe to it lol. I think a lot of stuff could stand to be more complicated to better capture the nuance of things like the above, but that kind of brings me to my second paragraph:
From what I’ve seen, cliff’s been pretty explicit that the constraint on realism is playability (which I don’t accept means coddling player expectations, unless cliff has said otherwise) and effort, and that realism is otherwise his priority. Not that his expectations don’t inform this stuff though. All this unless I’m missing an announcement of his to the contrary lol, in which case, sorry!
All of this is very interesting and a debate for the end of times (or the day we finally, somehow, have a way to test economic methods in a gigantic lab, for the good that would make to test economics out of social context for example). However, I fear you did not answer my original suggestion, which was to size the cost of state enterprise on the size of the private industry, or, rather, the size of demand, in the way it’s done for healthcare.
Hum, alright. You always have to balance the gameplay with the rest. Thing is, when I play with state enterprise, I find it weird and frustrating in the long run. But I suppose if I’m in a minority, dev time should go elsewhere.
If I understand you correctly, you are pointing out that the cost of state industries is simply not being multiplied by the same factors that influence the size of those industries when privatised yes?
So for example, space race stuff should maybe make the telecoms sector bigger because of easier rural satellite broadband… so that should affect the cost of a nationalised telecoms sector because it then needs to provide that wider service?
The healthcare system has a similar thing, with a “demand” value that can be influenced by a bunch of factors, and that then influence the size of the private sector and / or the cost of the public sector.
Certainly, if something affects the private sector, there ought to be a good reason as to why it wouldn’t affect the equivalent public sector in an equivalent manner. Concerns about profitability may play a role. And the afore-mentioned dynamics in re: corruption.
But if the effect isn’t there because of those or other things which make the two variants actually different, then either version of the industry ought to be affected thus.
