CIV uses an interesting economical model. If we take a closer look, we can observe that the state builds new cities, defense, infrastructure, cultural institutions (libraries, temples and so on), production facilities (forges, factories and power plants), boost economy (marketplaces…), improves land areas (including initial housing), starts fishing ventures and partly takes care of social security (hospitals) when needed.

Still there must be a private sector. If we negotiate open borders, there will be foreign trade routes without further state interference. The population develops their cottages on their own and skyrockets commercial output, and there is never a housing-question as the population increases.

It looks like some European social-democratic economical structure. Or like the successfull Chinese economy.

But there is one abnormality. In CIV, inflation is shown as a sum the state looses every turn. Compared to the following interpretation of the world outside CIV, it seems odd:

In the beginning, the state started to issue money as coins, mostly made of gold and silver from state-owned mines. Coins were worth their metal-weight – at least the first coins. In more developed economies, the king mixed not-so-precious metals in the alloy to increase the revenue of the state. Later many countries in reality had the same currency; the central bank should always have enough gold-reserves to cash out all bank notes (the gold-standard). Now this policy is abandoned.

This means that a state in theory can print all the money it wants, only at the cost of paper and ink (or even better – for the time being - much of the money is electronic and does not even need to be printed). If a state in a time-frame issues more money than the increase in GNP, there will be inflation (Or even hyper-inflation like in Germany after WWI. The reason for this was that the German Reich (pre Hitler) was in desperate need of money because of the harsh realities German economy faced after the peace. The authorities printed enormous amounts of paper-bills in values up to billions of Marks to get money from the whole society.).

On the contrary; less money printed, results in deflation as in the US in the 30’s.

But let us assume we have an inflation rate at zero. This means the state must print an amount of money equivalent to the rise in GNP. If our economy expands 5 percent a year, we must print 5 percent more money. This money is net income for the state.

If we add a 5 percent inflation-rate to this, it means the state must print even 5 percent more money. Our state expenditures will rise 5 percent. But as the state part of the whole national economy is limited, those extra 5 percent increase in banknotes needed by private enterprise, would far expend our inflation-related expenditures.

According to this, inflation should rather be regarded as income instead of expenditures.

Other interpretations?

Civ is older than the current economic policies of china. You're reading to deep.

if it was reallife there whould be no point on playing on civ4

First, this is a game.

Second, the current Chinese economy is way more capitalistic than ...say.. Canada. Most of the state-owned businesses were folded almost a decade ago. Many major cities look like monsters because tall, big buildings were built without much city planning (go have a look in Shanghai or Guangzhou). Hospitals ask you whether you have money first before asking you how you feel (there was recently a riot/protest happening in a Chinese town because the medical staff in a hospital insisted not to treat a poisoned kid until his parents paid first, and later the kid died from late treatment).

Not to complain, but my Chinese friends and I always wonder why many westerners, at least Americans, have such a twisted view of Chinese and China.

I find that many academic disciplines can provide a helpful background, or at the very least a different perspective, when playing civ. I know that my background on political science, namely various perspectives on international relations theory, has provided me new insights to the modeling of some of th AI behavior . A number of the leader personality trait combinations create AI characters the are almost perfect examples international relations theory come to life. As much as civ is just a game, it is a game that was obviously designed with the assistance of academics from a number of disciplines.

DUDE! CIV is a Chinese economy showroom! I can't believe I never noticed that before. Wow, thanks man! :thumbsup:

Not sure about that one, I'll ask Allan Greenspan next time I see him.

Anyway, in Civ the inflation rate advances at a set rate over time and does not fluctuate (it only goes up).


Most of the economic model of the game covers the times when the ruler(s) did do most of what you mentioned, look at the government civics and think back to history. Most grand projects (or at least the large ones) were state sponsered. The Roman histories provide excellent examples of this. Only since the renaissance / industrial revolution have things truly begun to develope as grandly in the private sector.

Further, in Crightonia, there is no social security (hospitals), I've never built any since they come way to late which is ridiculous consideing many cultures have had the equivilant much much earlier.

@Gettingfat
I dont' think anybody was criticising the Chinese, facts are booming economy, liberalizing politics (though still locked into what now more closely resembles a Facisct government than a communist one). Things are getting better over there compared to such horrible times in the more recent past (Mao, etc). Not sure what the twisted part you also mentioned was.

I find that many academic disciplines can provide a helpful background, or at the very least a different perspective, when playing civ. I know that my background on political science, namely various perspectives on international relations theory, has provided me new insights to the modeling of some of th AI behavior . A number of the leader personality trait combinations create AI characters the are almost perfect examples international relations theory come to life. As much as civ is just a game, it is a game that was obviously designed with the assistance of academics from a number of disciplines.

Civ is intended to be just a game, not a model, at least a legitimate one. I worked on computer modeling before and actually had an article published. Any model is wrong, except some are useful. Civ is a very wrong, unrealistic model. Give you a world map and play a civ. Do you honestly believe in today's world any country can win a dominance victory before some nukes destroy this planet? or somebody can launch a spaceship to reach Alpha Centauri by 2040?

Guys think Civ is like a model exemplifying old-fashioned Chinese centrally-directed economy. IMHO, it is simply because the designer allow the player to control almost everything. Why this happens? It gives the players more FUN! 99% people play games because they want to get the feel of gaining absolute control. If you ever play RPG games like me you'll understand how sux you feel when playing games you can't control your AI teammates (e.g. Neverwinter 1). Even in a more realistic game like SimCity 4, you play as a mayor and still has absolute control over which building to build, and which building to pull down.

So, it's better to treat a game as a game, and don't overanalyze it.

@Gettingfat
I dont' think anybody was criticising the Chinese, facts are booming economy, liberalizing politics (though still locked into what now more closely resembles a Facisct government than a communist one). Things are getting better over there compared to such horrible times in the more recent past (Mao, etc). Not sure what the twisted part you also mentioned was.

I wasn't saying people are "criticizing" the Chinese, I basically meant people are fairly misinformed. While politic-wise the central government still exercise a lot of control, economy-wise and even social infrastructure-wise basically the central government has much weaker influence. Give you an example, when some companies tried to buy shares of oil comapanies in the US and Canada, what I kept hearing is about how the economic aggression by the "communist Chinese" should be stopped, as if private sectors do not exist in China and smart Chinese business people don't know investing on oil industry is not a sure way of milking money. Go spend a few evening watching Fox News or CNN news and you will understand where I came from.

Regardless of teh political control exercised by the "communist" government, I'd argue that things in China are improving precisely because there is more economic freedom then before. IMO you can't have political freedom if you don't have the economic freedom to support it first.

I wouldn't take that Chinese "economic agression" too personally since almost the same uproar occured over the Dubai Ports deal too. That outrcy you heard about both was more or less business as usual being conducted by politics. Plus there was that oh so wonderfull experience we had with the oil embargo back in the 70's which makes oil ownership etc a bit of touchy nerve over here.

Anyway . . .

Civ is intended to be just a game, not a model, at least a legitimate one. I worked on computer modeling before and actually had an article published. Any model is wrong, except some are useful. Civ is a very wrong, unrealistic model. Give you a world map and play a civ. Do you honestly believe in today's world any country can win a dominance victory before some nukes destroy this planet? or somebody can launch a spaceship to reach Alpha Centauri by 2040?

Guys think Civ is like a model exemplifying old-fashioned Chinese centrally-directed economy. IMHO, it is simply because the designer allow the player to control almost everything. Why this happens? It gives the players more FUN! 99% people play games because they want to get the feel of gaining absolute control. If you ever play RPG games like me you'll understand how sux you feel when playing games you can't control your AI teammates (e.g. Neverwinter 1). Even in a more realistic game like SimCity 4, you play as a mayor and still has absolute control over which building to build, and which building to pull down.

I think that the Anology the OP made is possibly a fair one, but I would like to say it's nice actually have some who has done modeling admit that the models aren't the end all of all knowledge on a subject.

Guys think Civ is like a model exemplifying old-fashioned Chinese centrally-directed economy. IMHO, it is simply because the designer allow the player to control almost everything. Why this happens? It gives the players more FUN!

[...]

So, it's better to treat a game as a game, and don't overanalyze it.

My thoughts exactly. In a way it's a nice intellectual experiment to link the game's complexity and controllability to real-world politics and economies, but there's not much to be gained from it.

I also agree that people in western countries are, on aerage, not very well informed about Chinese economy or politics. Two of my customers regularly visit China (and make ton of money by advising German companies on how and where to invest there), and what they tell me about China is very different from the current public image of the country.

My guess is that lots of information get filtered by political and economical interests in both countries, and lost due to the large geographical distance (we don't know many Chinese people who could tell us different stories), so that the little information we actually get tends to be incomplete or distorted.

There are different perceptions of what the Chinese economy really looks like. But I do not believe a few evenings spent watching the American broadcasters Fox News and CNN news, it is sufficient background to establish an independent view of international economy.
Neither do I think it is a good idea to ask Mr. Greenspan, considering the state of USA’s economy.

yeah, low unemployment, near record highs in the stock market, low inflation, yeah were in the tank allright

4.6% unemployment in US, iirc. Certainly <5%. What's it in euopre, 2 or 3 times that?
Anyway, on topic, Civ economy is rather centerally controled if you look at your role as the government, but you aren't, really. You are more like the "spirit" of the country, so to speak, making decisions that even the most tight fisted despot couldn't hope to make all at once (every unit's movement, every city's production, the sole focus of research, etc.)

It is quite correct, as emphasized in previous posts, that the US stock marked is generating a lot of money, and that unemployment is low compared to most other industrialized countries. On the other hand, the budged deficit has steadily grown for some years now. The result is a skyrocketing debt to foreign countries, to an extend previously unheard of in the history of the United States.

One result is a plummeting dollar and rising prices on foreign manufactured consumer’s goods. A second consequence is an increasing use of euro, yen and other hard currencies in international trades.

To put it simple: If the Chinese and the Indians want their money back, it is doubtful that the American way of life, as we know it, will survive.

yeah, low unemployment, near record highs in the stock market, low inflation, yeah were in the tank allright

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "near" record highs for the stock market. It has been struggling to hit the highmark set about a half a decade ago. Is that really the example you want to use to represent a good economy? "We're ok! We're almost as rich as we were 5 years ago!" :lol: *edit* Fact checked, apparently its more like 7 years ago. Oops.

The US housing bubble implosion has revealed yet another ghost economy whose numbers were cooked primarilly in the thin and watery broth of home owner refinance.

It will be interesting to see what "new" dynamic the financial architects can ponzify to keep Dorothy and her mates from looking too closely at the men behind the economic curtain.


The CIV economy dynamic (I hestitate to call it that -- not really much of an an economy) is woefully underdeveloped and has been completely over boiled in an effort to present only economic purities and essence, in the name of "better game play"

With fractional reserve banking, the state doesn't even need to print more money to increase the money supply or generate inflation. Now an inflation tax can increase the revenue of the state, but only at the expense of a decrease in the real value of money held by the private sector.
It doesn't magically create value; it's just a sneaky way to get wealth from the private sector.

I don't think inflation in the game reflects what monetary economists think of as inflation. Instead I think it just represents a general increase in the (real) cost of providing services. I think of it as some diseconomy of scale in administering your empire. As your axemen, macemen, or tanks role through your enemies and gobble up cities, it becomes more and more expensive to control (increase in maintenance costs). A second hidden cost (inflation) is that as the world economy grows its more an more expensive to get bureaucrats to do the same job. With a growing economy, the opportunity cost of the time of those resources used to run your VASSALOCRACY gets higher and higher.

This translates to higher costs of civic upkeep. Since it's an increase in prices the CIV programmers called it inflation. They didn't really care that monetary economists, or people who took money and banking, tend to think of inflation as a monetary phenomenon. We can thank the late, great, Milton Friedman for that one.

"The US housing bubble implosion has revealed yet another ghost economy whose numbers were cooked primarilly in the thin and watery broth of home owner refinance. It will be interesting to see what "new" dynamic the financial architects can ponzify to keep Dorothy and her mates from looking too closely at the men behind the economic curtain." - drkodos

It might be a little overconfident to suppose that there are any men behind the curtain. Many might argue that we're all in Oz!

But seriously, who are these people?

@Grav
The Stock Market:
Thie year the Dow Jones closed above the 12,000 mark for the first time in its 110 year history back in mid October, and has been climbing since, at post time it was above 12,400 (mostly fuelled by late takeover announcements).

@drKodos
I've never understood the greater intricicies of the stock market myself, many just seem to use it as a guidepost for how well the overall economy is doing, and yes to me it does seem a bit like a ponzi scheme. I would however like to see some fluctations etc in Civ once you build up a modern economy (more trade agreements in the diplo menu, some semblance of a stock market once say Wall Street gets built, or Lord only knows for the Brits with their UB,) etc. etc.

et all:
Unemployment Rate: 4.5% in November 2006 (4% typically being considered "full employment"). Second and Thrid quarter Unemployment rates were at 4.7% of the Labor Force.
Payroll Employment: +132,000 in November 2006

blah blah blah things are looking better than ten years ago

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cps/)
(if your looking to make the source serch go quicker and get to easier data just click here (http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm))

Minimum wage has tanked though. You can't live on it, and Wal-Mart extends better benefits to employees overseas than they do here. It ain't very rosy for working class, and getting shakier for middle class.

As for China...it also stereotypes every East Asian leader as Protective, which implies shunning foreign contact. That would be fine...if the leaders who embraced active foreign policies were represented. China especially only became isolationist during the time of the Ming, beforehand they were very active in expressing their hegemony over their neighbors and sought to interact with the West on basic levels and assert control in the middle east, though those aims were thwarted first by Parthia and then by the Arabs. What's more, terming either Chinese leader(especially Mao, who actively engaged in foreign policy, could hardly be said to have fought any inspiring defensive action, ugh..I'll just stop now) Protective is like saying Churchill should be philosophical because he said some of those phrases of his....

On the other hand, the budged deficit has steadily grown for some years now. The result is a skyrocketing debt to foreign countries, to an extend previously unheard of in the history of the United States.

One result is a plummeting dollar and rising prices on foreign manufactured consumer’s goods. A second consequence is an increasing use of euro, yen and other hard currencies in international trades.

To put it simple: If the Chinese and the Indians want their money back, it is doubtful that the American way of life, as we know it, will survive.
Budgeted deficit decreased significantly last (or next? not sure) year. Also, it is not all that high as a percent of GDP.

Re:Foreign investment--do you invest in companies you don't expect to do well? Neither do foreign companies/citizens/governments invest money that they don't expect to be returned.

How has minimum waged tanked if inflation is low? The legal min. wage has only gone up, [thankfully not much as it leads to lower employment for begining workers] and if iniflation is admitedly low, how could it be said to have tanked?
I'll agree that falling $ compared to Euros etc. is probably a bad sign, but seen alongside an otherwise robust economy, I don't think it is dire, by any means.

It might be a little overconfident to suppose that there are any men behind the curtain. Many might argue that we're all in Oz!I would be quite happy if there was indeed no one behind the curtain. Invisible hand works better than the pandering politician.

"I would be quite happy if there was indeed no one behind the curtain. Invisible hand works better than the pandering politician."

-I totally agree. I was questioning whether or no drkodos had some theory about people behind the curtain controlling things.

Overall the US economy seems to be doing okay. Sure, it leaves some people behind, but that's the price we pay for efficiency.

It is right that the deficit of the American budget has decreased from 318 billion dollars in the fiscal and record year 2005 to about 250 billon dollars in 2006. This means that the outstanding public debt of the United States increased with only 250 billon dollars this year, and the country’s deficit is still growing. It is now about 4,5 percent of GDP, almost three times higher than the European average.

In total the Americans owe the rest of the world 8,616,623,032,972 dollars. With an estimated population of 300,498,942 people, each citizen carries hers/his part of the debt: 28,674 dollars. Someone has even figured out since September 29. the American national debt has increased at an average of 1,36 billion dollars every day.

I cannot guarantee the figures, but they look like what I previous have seen.

As for minimum wages, I have seen statistics showing that minimum wages have decreased the last few years compared to a dollar’s worth.

For the somewhat offtopic (or at least probably in the wrong forum) stuff, if we're going to be spouting numbers lets try to provide source links please.

Anyhoo . . .

As for China...it also stereotypes every East Asian leader as Protective, which implies shunning foreign contact. That would be fine...if the leaders who embraced active foreign policies were represented. China especially only became isolationist during the time of the Ming, beforehand they were very active in expressing their hegemony over their neighbors and sought to interact with the West on basic levels and assert control in the middle east, though those aims were thwarted first by Parthia and then by the Arabs. What's more, terming either Chinese leader(especially Mao, who actively engaged in foreign policy, could hardly be said to have fought any inspiring defensive action, ugh..I'll just stop now) Protective is like saying Churchill should be philosophical because he said some of those phrases of his....

I don't have much authority on the specifics of that but I do agree with the overall sentiment. I think Insular is probably being treated as Protective as far as traits go. I'd have thought someone had to have unified China (at least a couple times) and could have been given an Aggressive / Imperialistic trait or someting.

Frankly I don't see why it would be so hard to add in some Free / Bilateral Trade agreements into the game, be an option in the Diplo menu, if two countries agree to it the there would be domestic trade routes (duh) and basically a two tiered foreign route with the routes to the Trade partner getting an x% boost in commerce. there'd be obvious diplo bonus for this etc etc. This probably wouldn't work with Mercantilism though, ah well.

I'm going to go get me some coffee.

P.S. - I'm the guy behind the curtain.

The analogy to China is interesting - certainly, the lack of governmental change is spot-on....

Inflation should happen both on inputs and outputs - e.g., because taxation is modeled as a percentage of output, tax revenues should rise with inflation. You could run a static economy for a while as an experiment to see if does that.

I'm trying to figure out how to give Civ a more realistically expanding economy, notably increasingly valuable goods, but I'm having trouble figuring out manufactured goods - how to tie amounts to labor inputs, not to mention how to untie more trading capital (though that might solve itself).

Civ game engine is NOT Capitalistic, and by definition HAS to emulate a managed economy.

Capitalism, for better or worse, is about freedom of economic choice, and lots and lots of people making choices daily in their own economic self-interest. These choices by INDIVIDUALS are made mostly independent from any higher authority. In a purely capitalistic economy (which does not exist), everything that is produced and built would be based on choices by individuals, (I include corporations as individuals for the sake or argument). You want a road built, then somebody would decide if they could make a profit from it and build it. Same for a hospital, or a car, or a loaf of bread.

But in CIV, or any other computer game like it, YOU are the supreme ruler. (OK, OK, you can play automatic, but you will not succeed as well as if you micromanage)
YOU alone are the one making every economic decision on what is to be built, and when, and where.
YOU alone decide where every worker is to build and what that worker builds.
YOU alone decide where a city will exist.
YOU alone decide what products to produce.
YOU alone decide and what to trade and who to trade with.

This is called a managed economy, where everything is controlled by a central government. And YOU are the central government. So any discussion of this game or any other game being like a quasi-capitalist model is ridiculous.
The Original Poster was on the right path, but it is not even the Chinese model, since China is moving towards capitalism.

Until the game engine stops the game mid-turn, and says, "Hey player, we electrons have decided we can run the economy better than you", and locks up the keyboard and mouse, this will be the economic model of a benevolent dictatorship.

You don't really control all the production decisions.

You also don't control all of the trading decisions. True, you decide what nations you'll trade with, but then the trade routes are automatic. Presumably the trade route mechanics represent your little profit maximizing citizens are finding the best routes.

Who knows what's going on in the little cottages that turn them into hamlets, villages, and then towns. The game might be a little simplistic on the economy, but I like how civic choices influence how productive your towns are. Allowing Free Speech gives you extra commerce (and taxable income) while having Universal Suffrage again leads to greater productivity.

You are being a (hopefully) benevolent social planner. But at least the game tries to give you some interesting tradeoffs in allowing more or less freedom.

In total the Americans owe the rest of the world 8,616,623,032,972 dollars.

You are refering to the national debt. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

In actuality roughly half of the debt is owned by Americans.

Foreign ownership of debt actually makes the dollar stronger.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/12/post_1.html

If anyone had interest of how's going on in one civ's econemy ,inclouding the occuring of "inflation & dnflation" mentioned upwards ,Paul A·Samuelson's Macroeconomics will be significant helpful.I'm reading this book resently.It's telling you how production consumption investment is working in modern(after WW2)national economy & eachother.