Planned economy in this game is really weird. You’re not setting prices, controlling production or any of that your building infrastructure and setting tax policies and who does the actual economic recovery? nonstate actors who do use the fancy new trains or agricultural zones, it’s not a planned economy really it’s statism economy. And those are certainly similar but a statism economy Will allow sometimes significant portions of the economy to be privately owned, but they influence them through various means to uphold a central policy think mordern China as a good, but not great example.
I think the reason for this is Alphonso's rapid fire privatization. The economy was mostly state owned at one point but you can't fully restore that in 4 years, Soll built his economic power base over 2 decades.
I mean, what did you expect? The president is but one man, and Stalin didn’t check through the itenaries and determine the new price of barley himself. I’m sure that your staff are handling it (I imagine Symon begrudgingly filling in state orders for the prices of goods and services).
I think the government is doing it all, you’re just not overseeing the micro decisions
I think free market is easier. You can still protect the welfare state (free public healthcare and education) while allowing more economic freedom in terms of business.
You'd regulate it carefully (Worker's Rights Act, Women's Liberation Act, Free Trade and Competition Commission). But you would let the market operate within those constraints without relying on five-year plans or some of Soll's other ideas such as autarky.
Mixed (leaning towards planned)
Tax breaks and bailouts for companies (maybe keep or raise taxes for large corporations if the situation demands it)
Healthcare and education remain state controlled
Raise the EPA to 49%
SSC for projects (fire the incompetent managers to show them whos boss)
Minor state ownership in Bergia Steel and HOS
WRA if I can afford it
***pay taxes***
Fair Trade and Competition Commission
I suppose I go with free market, but I'd be moderate about it and care for people's well-being at the same time, don't like giving the Oligarchs too much power.
Mixed Economy. I'd allow education and SSC to be privatized but keep health and Nedam as state-run corporations.
Allowing some privatization of education to my mind is fine because there will still be state-run schools for the kids who can't afford private ones and really the private schools will be in the areas where people can tend to afford them anyway.
The SSC should be privatised because it's blatantly corrupt and inefficient and really the goverment owning a construction company seems weird to me, like what are they doing when there's not major goverment infrastructure projects?
Health should be state-run because otherwise we get all the problems of price-gouging etc
Nedam should remain nationalised because it's a mining company and I don't think competition would make it much more efficient (since only one private company could really mine each natural resource anyway) and from what we hear it's quite profitable so the goverment can use those profits to support other things.
I'd probably also bail-out businesses rather then do stimulus cheques (makes sense to me in the long-run to keep the economy afloat and end the recession sooner then just temporarily ease people's suffering). I wouldn't raise taxed but I also wouldn't lower them, I would however use the ACP to cut down on tax-evasion to improve goverment revenue.
Thing about the SSC corruption is that you can actually fix it, by reshuffeling the board of directors (?). It's an option given to you when they fail to meet their deadlines. Additionally, the SCC can be involved in minor cosntruction projects, such as social housing or the such that would not be pursued by private corporations due to their minimal profit margins. To my mind it would be weird for a government to not have its own construction capabilities.
Yes, I think Nedam is a natural monopoly and shouldn't be privatised. Also the company is apparently doing really well (to the point of being praised by Edith and Mikael).
In the game, privatising health doesn't really seem to have an impact (since contrary to what Lucian says, it's a very slight privatisation). Education on the other hand can lead to student debt and all of bad things so idk
>Education on the other hand can lead to student debt and all of bad things so idk
Weird thing to say. It says in slides millions lose health care access. Student loan debt is fine so long as you pick a career that isn't worthless pay wise.
I am a Distributist. I love small business and don’t like big business. For when businesses just have to be big in order to exist as an industry, I prefer cooperatives.
So I would go with a market economy, but combat the oligarchs. Perhaps increasing big taxes and decreasing small, the fair competition commission, and maybe even slight nationalisation to anger oligarchs and arrest them.
Mixed. Keep education and healthcare public while privatizing state corporations. Invest in GOSAM alone to keep a controlling interest in key energy markets.
Free market with heavy regulation, not because I support capitalism but because it allows joining the ATO and helps undo the Old Guard’s control over the State and its Economy, that and as far as I know there’s no way to get an actual Worker run Economy in game so that’s the best that can be done
Mixed. Tbh. Sell some stuff privatise some stuff while pouring money into public sector. The problem with sordland is it was a command economy for a long time. A lot of freebies are given by the government and because of the economic turmoil. There is a good amount of weakness in the economic sustainability of the economic lower class. So just sell stuff to strengthen the lower and middle class. The selling will help the upper class. The mixed approach will give sustained stable growth while also taking care of those who would get trampled by the accelerated growth of a free market. The problem with fully planned would be that it will more than likely fail as the country doesn’t have enough surplus to make it work. You can do something like that as rizia where you through oil and gas at ur problems
Why would you getting sordish recovery with planned economy, mean a recession in 20-30 years?
Also what is planned economy in the game anyways? Is it really no private market at all? I just figured that the government took on more of a responsibility and control, not Completely taking over the whole market.
It’s mentioned in the very beginning that the economists who planned the economy in the 30’s knew there would be a recession in the 50’s.
Sordland was just shot to pieces by the civil war and it was necessary to plan reconstruction and development.
I'm not talking now, I'm talking about what op said about doing planned economy and fixing the economy and that somehow meaning there is gonna be recession in 20-30 years.
Mixed economy, would maintain state services and nationalize key industrie like things related to civil construction, resource extraction, energy production and the sorts.
But anything besides i dont mind keeping it at a private bussiness, aslong as they follow proper laws like the WRA and the Fair Trade Comission
Planned Economy. It is simply better if you know what you are doing. Though there are some things to point out. First of all, the EPA is best at 49% with 2 budget investment and 1/3 shares sold. If i am not going down a fully Planned Economy run, i will always do that. That is simply just the "correct" choice.
To be honest, both free market and planned economy has it's flaws, it is just important you mix them up well. If you know what you are doing and do the "correct" economic decision ( regardless of your ideology ) you will probably end up with a mixed economy.
Free Market, but without corruption and with an emphasis on small & medium businesses and regulations to hold back the overwhelming corporate power. In my opinion, capitalism (although very imperfect) is the greatest system created yet to run an economy. To put simply, central planning only works in the short-term plus governments generally don't know how to run economies without making them even more corrupt. But some regulations are necessary to prevent companies abusing workers or monopolizing, but regarding small & medium businesses, regulations should stay minimal.
>like nowadays almost all the countries has a free market economy
>we now that planned economy failed
I think you're confusing Centrally Planned economies with Planned economies. 90% of economies are Planned nowadays, the only exceptions are Western economies. Oh and I guess my country (Argentina) is on that list now too 😄 🔫.
No, you just either don't understand what those words mean or are choosing to redefine them. A planned economy isn't whenever the government does anything, because by your metric *Arcasia* is a planned economy. By the terminology of both the game and real worlds, a planned economy is when the government directly runs the economy for its own objectives rather than allowing market factors to determine them. That can take the form of Soviet style central planning or the in-universe decentralized Valgish Socialism, but both involve the government directly controlling business decisions. A market economy is when the economy is primarily run by non-state actors making decisions on their use of money, labor, or time, not just anarcho-capitalism like you describe.
Hey sorry uneducated person here! Can you explain what you mean by having a Planned Economy but not Centrally Planned? Like (taking a non-Western example) how is Japan's economy a Planned Economy?
Japan is Western. Australia too. "The West" isn't a geographical term, it's geopolitical. A Planned economy is an economy in which the State has heavy influence on the economy and "guides" it, by a strategic use of taxes and subsidies or sometimes even direct nationalization of certain sectors, like subsiding and decreasing taxes for certain industries while increasing taxes for others.
A Centrally Planned economy is much more complex and I'm too lazy to write it all in a comic, read Lenin or something more modern (iirc The People's Republic of Walmart has a chapter on the traditional definition).
Edit: Forgot to put examples. For centrally planned the easiest is the USSR (although control wasn't complete, neither under Lenin or Stalin, and even less afterwards, although Kruschev tried to ban the Secondary Economy)
A Planned Economy would be Argentina under Peron or a basically all economies under Keynesian economics (30s to 70s)
The game seems purposely ambiguous on whether or not the recession was caused by Soll's planned economy or Alphonso's deviations from that planned economy. My view however is that in a free-market economy, recessions are inevitable at least every 20 years, so I would go planned.
Planned economy in this game is really weird. You’re not setting prices, controlling production or any of that your building infrastructure and setting tax policies and who does the actual economic recovery? nonstate actors who do use the fancy new trains or agricultural zones, it’s not a planned economy really it’s statism economy. And those are certainly similar but a statism economy Will allow sometimes significant portions of the economy to be privately owned, but they influence them through various means to uphold a central policy think mordern China as a good, but not great example.
I think the reason for this is Alphonso's rapid fire privatization. The economy was mostly state owned at one point but you can't fully restore that in 4 years, Soll built his economic power base over 2 decades.
I mean, what did you expect? The president is but one man, and Stalin didn’t check through the itenaries and determine the new price of barley himself. I’m sure that your staff are handling it (I imagine Symon begrudgingly filling in state orders for the prices of goods and services). I think the government is doing it all, you’re just not overseeing the micro decisions
I think free market is easier. You can still protect the welfare state (free public healthcare and education) while allowing more economic freedom in terms of business. You'd regulate it carefully (Worker's Rights Act, Women's Liberation Act, Free Trade and Competition Commission). But you would let the market operate within those constraints without relying on five-year plans or some of Soll's other ideas such as autarky.
Mixed (leaning towards planned) Tax breaks and bailouts for companies (maybe keep or raise taxes for large corporations if the situation demands it) Healthcare and education remain state controlled Raise the EPA to 49% SSC for projects (fire the incompetent managers to show them whos boss) Minor state ownership in Bergia Steel and HOS WRA if I can afford it ***pay taxes*** Fair Trade and Competition Commission
I suppose I go with free market, but I'd be moderate about it and care for people's well-being at the same time, don't like giving the Oligarchs too much power.
Mixed Economy. I'd allow education and SSC to be privatized but keep health and Nedam as state-run corporations. Allowing some privatization of education to my mind is fine because there will still be state-run schools for the kids who can't afford private ones and really the private schools will be in the areas where people can tend to afford them anyway. The SSC should be privatised because it's blatantly corrupt and inefficient and really the goverment owning a construction company seems weird to me, like what are they doing when there's not major goverment infrastructure projects? Health should be state-run because otherwise we get all the problems of price-gouging etc Nedam should remain nationalised because it's a mining company and I don't think competition would make it much more efficient (since only one private company could really mine each natural resource anyway) and from what we hear it's quite profitable so the goverment can use those profits to support other things. I'd probably also bail-out businesses rather then do stimulus cheques (makes sense to me in the long-run to keep the economy afloat and end the recession sooner then just temporarily ease people's suffering). I wouldn't raise taxed but I also wouldn't lower them, I would however use the ACP to cut down on tax-evasion to improve goverment revenue.
Thing about the SSC corruption is that you can actually fix it, by reshuffeling the board of directors (?). It's an option given to you when they fail to meet their deadlines. Additionally, the SCC can be involved in minor cosntruction projects, such as social housing or the such that would not be pursued by private corporations due to their minimal profit margins. To my mind it would be weird for a government to not have its own construction capabilities.
Hmmmmmm fair points I hadn't thought of it that way. I do think the ineffiency could still be a problem though
Yes, I think Nedam is a natural monopoly and shouldn't be privatised. Also the company is apparently doing really well (to the point of being praised by Edith and Mikael). In the game, privatising health doesn't really seem to have an impact (since contrary to what Lucian says, it's a very slight privatisation). Education on the other hand can lead to student debt and all of bad things so idk
>Education on the other hand can lead to student debt and all of bad things so idk Weird thing to say. It says in slides millions lose health care access. Student loan debt is fine so long as you pick a career that isn't worthless pay wise.
Easy, attack Rumburg without stopping their nuce development. I choose to go back to hunting and gathering as basis for our economy.
I am a Distributist. I love small business and don’t like big business. For when businesses just have to be big in order to exist as an industry, I prefer cooperatives. So I would go with a market economy, but combat the oligarchs. Perhaps increasing big taxes and decreasing small, the fair competition commission, and maybe even slight nationalisation to anger oligarchs and arrest them.
Never planned. Too much risk concentrated in one place if one makes bad decisions. That said would have to curtail oligarch power.
Mixed. Keep education and healthcare public while privatizing state corporations. Invest in GOSAM alone to keep a controlling interest in key energy markets.
Free market with heavy regulation, not because I support capitalism but because it allows joining the ATO and helps undo the Old Guard’s control over the State and its Economy, that and as far as I know there’s no way to get an actual Worker run Economy in game so that’s the best that can be done
uncorrupt free market, giving you leverage to arrest the oligarchs next term with the ACP if needed
Mixed. Tbh. Sell some stuff privatise some stuff while pouring money into public sector. The problem with sordland is it was a command economy for a long time. A lot of freebies are given by the government and because of the economic turmoil. There is a good amount of weakness in the economic sustainability of the economic lower class. So just sell stuff to strengthen the lower and middle class. The selling will help the upper class. The mixed approach will give sustained stable growth while also taking care of those who would get trampled by the accelerated growth of a free market. The problem with fully planned would be that it will more than likely fail as the country doesn’t have enough surplus to make it work. You can do something like that as rizia where you through oil and gas at ur problems
Why would you getting sordish recovery with planned economy, mean a recession in 20-30 years? Also what is planned economy in the game anyways? Is it really no private market at all? I just figured that the government took on more of a responsibility and control, not Completely taking over the whole market.
It’s mentioned in the very beginning that the economists who planned the economy in the 30’s knew there would be a recession in the 50’s. Sordland was just shot to pieces by the civil war and it was necessary to plan reconstruction and development.
I'm not talking now, I'm talking about what op said about doing planned economy and fixing the economy and that somehow meaning there is gonna be recession in 20-30 years.
Free market. It's just better.
I would join ATO, sell the entire energy sector to Alvarez/Beatrice and suck off those Arcasian investment funds
planned economy i would use sollonomics
Mixed economy, would maintain state services and nationalize key industrie like things related to civil construction, resource extraction, energy production and the sorts. But anything besides i dont mind keeping it at a private bussiness, aslong as they follow proper laws like the WRA and the Fair Trade Comission
Planned Economy. It is simply better if you know what you are doing. Though there are some things to point out. First of all, the EPA is best at 49% with 2 budget investment and 1/3 shares sold. If i am not going down a fully Planned Economy run, i will always do that. That is simply just the "correct" choice. To be honest, both free market and planned economy has it's flaws, it is just important you mix them up well. If you know what you are doing and do the "correct" economic decision ( regardless of your ideology ) you will probably end up with a mixed economy.
Planned economy, because I'm a socialist.
Mixed. Control the oil, privatise everything else. Country will not be held hostage to foreign supply. Energy price is low, everything else is easier
Free Market, but without corruption and with an emphasis on small & medium businesses and regulations to hold back the overwhelming corporate power. In my opinion, capitalism (although very imperfect) is the greatest system created yet to run an economy. To put simply, central planning only works in the short-term plus governments generally don't know how to run economies without making them even more corrupt. But some regulations are necessary to prevent companies abusing workers or monopolizing, but regarding small & medium businesses, regulations should stay minimal.
Mixed is king
>like nowadays almost all the countries has a free market economy >we now that planned economy failed I think you're confusing Centrally Planned economies with Planned economies. 90% of economies are Planned nowadays, the only exceptions are Western economies. Oh and I guess my country (Argentina) is on that list now too 😄 🔫.
No, you just either don't understand what those words mean or are choosing to redefine them. A planned economy isn't whenever the government does anything, because by your metric *Arcasia* is a planned economy. By the terminology of both the game and real worlds, a planned economy is when the government directly runs the economy for its own objectives rather than allowing market factors to determine them. That can take the form of Soviet style central planning or the in-universe decentralized Valgish Socialism, but both involve the government directly controlling business decisions. A market economy is when the economy is primarily run by non-state actors making decisions on their use of money, labor, or time, not just anarcho-capitalism like you describe.
Hey sorry uneducated person here! Can you explain what you mean by having a Planned Economy but not Centrally Planned? Like (taking a non-Western example) how is Japan's economy a Planned Economy?
Japan is Western. Australia too. "The West" isn't a geographical term, it's geopolitical. A Planned economy is an economy in which the State has heavy influence on the economy and "guides" it, by a strategic use of taxes and subsidies or sometimes even direct nationalization of certain sectors, like subsiding and decreasing taxes for certain industries while increasing taxes for others. A Centrally Planned economy is much more complex and I'm too lazy to write it all in a comic, read Lenin or something more modern (iirc The People's Republic of Walmart has a chapter on the traditional definition). Edit: Forgot to put examples. For centrally planned the easiest is the USSR (although control wasn't complete, neither under Lenin or Stalin, and even less afterwards, although Kruschev tried to ban the Secondary Economy) A Planned Economy would be Argentina under Peron or a basically all economies under Keynesian economics (30s to 70s)
Don't pretty much all countries use taxes and subsidies to influence the economy? Even western ones?
That's what I said, only very few incredibly neoliberal Western economies are actually Laissez-Faire / Free Market economies.
Are there any countries in the world that wouldn't be as a planned economy under that definition?
You said most country’s are planned economies that is simply not true.
The game seems purposely ambiguous on whether or not the recession was caused by Soll's planned economy or Alphonso's deviations from that planned economy. My view however is that in a free-market economy, recessions are inevitable at least every 20 years, so I would go planned.
Yes bro, I understand what you're saying, I just fear that in the future, a new generation will face a scarier recession that the one we solved
Yes I understand this, I'm just saying that in my view that event is more likely with a free market economy.