Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
2 
Report this post
Like hmmmmm I WONDER ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ WHY
The game has no Overton Window. It's also not discouraged to do *anything* politically extreme. The political compass tool exists to show you how your various games have politically ended up. It exists because the point of the game is that, technically, any form of government can exist and work to some degree. The game is built upon how everything has drawbacks.
Too much environmentalism and you tank your GDP, too few regulations and the economy and environment will spiral downwards, too many social welfare policies with no taxes tanks the economy, too much authoritarianism and you get brain-drain. Literally every single ideological stance creates extremists if you go too far in any single direction. That's how the game works. It's also not far off how real-life works.
It's the same antics as when Civ 6 implemented climate change and Americans lost it over "socialist propaganda and climate hoaxing" lmao
Strange how a game where encouraging and helping small-businesses, tech companies, etc. is """""""""""socialism""""""""""""" except when America does it.
It's kind of a lil time capsule of how utterly insane a lot of people were in 2013 when every teenager had this batsh*t personal philosophy and everyone was fighting to sound the smartest by being a raving madman. You have these normal people just kind of either peaceably agreeing with some parts of the post (which was 30% about religion because, well, it was 2013), or mostly just finding the guy ludicrous, or disagreeing mildly, etc. Then you have these 2 or 3 dedicated madmen that write in a weird fever-dream type way.
yea I was kinda scrambling to find a way to express myself and didnt want to repeat the "game leaning left" line again. The thing is, for me, democracy 3 really was a thing that kind helped shape my mind when I was a bit younger. I played this game several times through the years and when I was in hs/collage the game really sold me the "raise taxes high, spend on useful government programs" idea. It wasn't necessary the main/only thing that shaped my mind back then, but it was a drop among a lot of other stuff.
I am not an economist. I studied a different field in collage but I do read occasionally a bit about economics/politics. stuff like crashcourse youtube videos or wikipedia. I couldn't really say if I see the Keynesian model or the Austrians as more realistic since I do not know enough about them. I have a friend who is an economist and we sometimes discuss about different matters. I find that I agree with him on quite a lot of subjects. In a recent talk with him he actually recommended me the book "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises (and now after googling it I can see it is in support of the Austrian school, so I guess he also follows that line of thought).
Anyway, thanks for your answer. Maybe I just do not connect to the Keynesian school.
I was refering to this:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/245470/discussions/0/527274088384080388/
I googled again to see if there is another thread. found this:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/245470/discussions/0/810939351158493600/
Thats all i found that relates to that subject.
btw there how does "encouraging" small-businesses and tech companies represents a small-government approach?
You find it hard to succeed at the game because you're bad at it dude. Self-crit.
If you do any form of ignoring a group; You. Will. Die. You *can't* please only one group and survive. That's why the achievements for even accomplishing extremist governments are so hard, because they require that zero compromise and will almost never work without slam-repealing all of your crossilsle policies in a few turns so you don't get ganked.
Congrats on being bold enough to agree with someone who admitted they were full of sh*t, implicitly or otherwise.
Shortish version is that Austrians tend to expect government taxation and meddling to make a society worse off, that the government is unable to implement policies that are as helpful as what could/would be done if people kept their money instead of the government taking it to spend it on their behalf. The problem Austrians have isn't that the government wants to be unhelpful, it's that individual people have information that is necessary to make correct spending decisions and aren't going to disclose that information, and even if they would, no entity would be capable of storing it and judging it in a useful way to make spending decisions. Austrians tend to believe that wasteful spending caused by a lack of information offsets any good that is gained by the government's more efficient buying power.
This information problem also sets the limits of what a government should spend money on for followers of the Austrian school. Roads, firemen, police, the military, are all services that everyone needs and the government won't get meaningful information from individuals that would improve spending decisions. Ideal social spending is a lot trickier. Whether it would be better for society for the government to help John, who's working as a handyman, or Jim who's a drug dealer, is obvious, but when Jim's lying about his information, there's no way for the government to make a correct decision. But the lack of information can be much more subtle, Sally, a single mom who just got a gift from her parents when her mom got a bonus at work, probably doesn't need extra rent help this month. But Susan,who looks identical to the government, has been giving money to her parents because her mom quit working after she got cancer, she probably needs extra help, but there isn't a good way for the government to know enough to respond to the need. To Austrians, whatever good they or their friends get from social programs is lost because they and the individuals around them have been taxed and can't use that money in their current circumstances.
Keynesians basically believe the opposite of all of that. The government is capable of improving society through taxation and social spending because the increased efficiency of the government's spending offsets any waste or mistaken spending of resources. This also means there's no real limit to what the government should spend money on, because the government is always a more efficient purchaser than the individuals the government represents.
Even then, none of that even factors into the game, its mechanics, and grossly boils down someone being sh*t at the game to some convenient "I'm just so smart I know the REAL uh... economics? Of the world? Because some guy misrepresented them in a thread to try adding some nonexistent intellectual flexing to beef up my self-admitted bullsh*t claims."
I find it kind of... weird that you're proselytizing a discredited economics model to someone when they flat out admitted that they had zero idea what you were talking about. You couldn't even be bothered to do it genuinely or cite actual, functioning, well-known economists who do still advocate a modified form of Austrian economics. You just added in this patently obvious, completely non-subtle manipulative phrasing in to more or less make Austrian economics look like a downright disgusting thing. Which, I mean, is kind of impressive. With that wording you made intent more than clear and made an actual economics model seem unambiguously bad even though in reality it's... just an economics model. And not even close to how you described it either. Your personal interpretations are great but when you're proselytizing, maybe uh, keep them out of it at the minimum. This is why people have turned into "UM WHERE'S MY CITATION" Karens. Because the second you offer someone the chance to represent something, you're taking a solid 95% chance they're in some way lying, like OP, trying to manipulate someone in a cultish fashion, misrepresenting something, wrong, partially right, etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
A lot more genuine than whatever the hell you were trying to do, and I don't even follow the modern Austrian model.
Sheep is bad at the game. That's it. That's the thread. The game isn't biased. If you fail and blame it on the game being "based on Keynesian economics (which is one of the most absurd things I've heard in my 7 years of playing Dem3, modding it, and learning how it internally functions)", or "socialist bias", it's because you're a crybaby who wants to throw a fit over failing at a game despite it being known for being fairly hard to even survive a term thanks to the careful balancing act required by modern politics.
People in Democracy 3 will gank you faster than a tentacle demon in Dark Souls for even vaguely doing something they dislike if you don't be excessively careful. That's how they work.
If you want to proselytize, add the dude, do it there. Sheep got mad that he failed, looked up guides, saw, and I looked, a handful, out of dozens, of people who were mad like him, and decided to just think "mmm yes, my confirmation bias likes this one heavily mocked comment in this thread, this is preferable to learning the game. i will now go lie about this for internet points but admit 5 seconds in that i lied."
Do you want to try writing whatever the heck that was again, without the insults? I could follow some of it, but when you use adjectives like "disgusting" without being specific about what you find disgusting it's difficult to write a reasonable response. I'll address what you wrote that I could follow.
Of course my language shows a bias towards the Austrian school, I wrote earlier in the conversation, to the person I was addressing, that I tend to believe more in the Austrian school then the Keynesian school. If you want an unbiased opinion, first talk to an alien, because humans have biases. But second if you've got a preference towards writing by someone that lies about what their biases are, go find someone that lies and says they have no biases. I'd tend to prefer to be honest by first disclosing the bias, and second by not writing in a way that pretends it doesn't exist. I could make exactly the same points I want to make, and sure, probably be more convincing by feigning impartiality, but I try not to lie.
As to the Austrian school being "defunct," that's an oversimplification. Some ideas of the school have been absorbed into mainstream economics, because everyone basically agreed on the ideas. Other theories are essentially unfalsifiable for the foreseeable future. That's a pain in the ass, and there are relatively few economists that want to pursue it, because what's the point of studying something if you can't prove or disprove it. Even if you believe it, there are better ways to spend your time. But just because something is unfalsifiable, that doesn't make it incorrect, doesn't make it correct either, but calling something defunct when we may at some point develop methods to test the theories that are "defunct" is at least as misleading as anything I said.
As far as not citing an economist, I was describing The information problem[mises.org] as it pertains to government policy and a game like Democracy, it's also relevant to why Austrians reject economic modeling, the main reason that the Austrian school unfalsifiable. That essay lays out the problem as it pertains to two trading partners, but it shouldn't be hard to figure out that a government has the same kinds of problems.
As far as proselytizing, yes, I believe that society is better off when we don't expect someone that has never and will never meet us solve our personal problems. I think society works better when that's a job for ourselves, our neighbors, and our families. I think society was better when the social ritual of the Barn Raising,[en.wikipedia.org] as written about by de Tocqueville was the norm, rather than today, when the government is expected to be everyone's neighbor, and you're lucky if a single good friend shows up to help when you need to move. The expectation that your neighbors will help build a damn building, for free, when asked, seems like an example of a pretty secure social safety net. It just doesn't have a thing to do with the government.
No. It's not. Again, if you want to proselytize your perversion of Austrian economics to that dude, do it to him, that isn't what this thread exists for.
This isn't your church my dude. Also, I don't care what you were supposedly referencing. You borderline lied about the actual economic practice and did it in a fully transparent way. Not interested in your MLM-like antics.
There's a difference between bias and grossly misrepresenting a school of economics and intentionally omitting actual points of reference because you want to cultishly try manipulating either that one dude, or other people, which is transparent, and thus, worthless.
You can bring up the word "bias" as a convenient copout all you want. It's just as transparent as you pretending your own economic ideas are the actual methodology of Austrian economics, which they're not. They're close, not even correct, just vaguely close, on a handful of occasions. It's. Not. Subtle. Nothing you do is, not even "I didn't understand it because you called my transparent attempt to force my version of an economics system down Sheep's, and the thread's, throat, disgusting." If you genuinely *couldn't* then don't try proselytizing at all. If you can't even tangentially self-crit, or understand basic sentences entirely, you aren't someone anyone's going to pretend want to hear manifestos from.
This thread isn't your manifesto, and nobody, not even Sheep, is very likely to want to hear your personal beliefs. If he wants to, he'll uh, use Wikipedia to just get the written version and citations aplenty from the last 140 or so years that it's existed.
You also posted a link to a problem that... doesn't relate to anything in this thread. At all. Why you chose it as some kind of... justification, is just another thing that seems completely pulled from the bin.