civhelp121
Prince
In my current game, I'm in the middle of the Modern age with one of my rivals running Regulated, while I'm running Free Market. Now it is one thing for the bonuses because its very subjective so I don't care even if I think Free Market is a big overpowered.
What does bother me, however, is the implication in two ways that Regulated is not Capitalism. The two ways is the name of a civilization that adopts Regulated "People's Republic of .....," and, in the diplomactic bonus, when you are running Free Market and the other Regulated, it says "-5 Capitalism is corrupt!". First of all, the name "People's Republic of....," is commonly seen as the name of a communist country, and the diplomatic bonus implies that the other person is not running capitalism.
To make things clear, Regulated is the economic option that represents Keynesian economics in real life. Both being able to run after researching Applied Economics and the fact that it has a picture of Keynes in the civic graphic and since I've seen here times when Regulated has been regarded as Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics, in turn, is the idea that during a recession or depression, the government should spend money to employ people so the recession is not as deep, and during booms it should save money for the next bust cycle, thereby reducing the boom. Basically it does not affect long run growth, but simply means to smooth out the bumps along the ride. What affects long run growth, like population growth and technological increase is not challenged by Keynesian economics. If you add in monetarist policies like raising and lowering the interest rates and money supply, and you basically get New Keynesian economics, but thats not important.
As you can see from that definition, Keynesian is actually pro-capitalism and wants the private sector to decide mostly how to distribute goods. It is more like a slight move to the left on the spectrum of Communism on the left and complete Free Markets on the right. The slight move the left is not nearly enough to be considered anything but Capitalism.
Although it may infer in the name that it also represents the economic policy to regulate corporations, I don't think anyone would consider regulation communism or Socialism. After all, we don't want lead in toys made here too.
In terms of the negative diplomatic bonus, I'd agree with that considering how Europe, which would fall further to the left than America although both would be defined as running Regulated, was angry at the US for not regulating its Capital Markets enough. I wouldn't put that large a negative bonus, but like I said, since its subjective and I'm not the one coding I'm not going to complain.
So basically my request is for the next update that Regulated not be infered as some sort of communist/socialist system
What does bother me, however, is the implication in two ways that Regulated is not Capitalism. The two ways is the name of a civilization that adopts Regulated "People's Republic of .....," and, in the diplomactic bonus, when you are running Free Market and the other Regulated, it says "-5 Capitalism is corrupt!". First of all, the name "People's Republic of....," is commonly seen as the name of a communist country, and the diplomatic bonus implies that the other person is not running capitalism.
To make things clear, Regulated is the economic option that represents Keynesian economics in real life. Both being able to run after researching Applied Economics and the fact that it has a picture of Keynes in the civic graphic and since I've seen here times when Regulated has been regarded as Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics, in turn, is the idea that during a recession or depression, the government should spend money to employ people so the recession is not as deep, and during booms it should save money for the next bust cycle, thereby reducing the boom. Basically it does not affect long run growth, but simply means to smooth out the bumps along the ride. What affects long run growth, like population growth and technological increase is not challenged by Keynesian economics. If you add in monetarist policies like raising and lowering the interest rates and money supply, and you basically get New Keynesian economics, but thats not important.
As you can see from that definition, Keynesian is actually pro-capitalism and wants the private sector to decide mostly how to distribute goods. It is more like a slight move to the left on the spectrum of Communism on the left and complete Free Markets on the right. The slight move the left is not nearly enough to be considered anything but Capitalism.
Although it may infer in the name that it also represents the economic policy to regulate corporations, I don't think anyone would consider regulation communism or Socialism. After all, we don't want lead in toys made here too.
In terms of the negative diplomatic bonus, I'd agree with that considering how Europe, which would fall further to the left than America although both would be defined as running Regulated, was angry at the US for not regulating its Capital Markets enough. I wouldn't put that large a negative bonus, but like I said, since its subjective and I'm not the one coding I'm not going to complain.
So basically my request is for the next update that Regulated not be infered as some sort of communist/socialist system
