1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Communism in Civ 4

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by VCrakeV, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. Civ4_boi

    Civ4_boi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    77
    Good point, and good use of what should be well known historical data.

    I don't want to start a historical and political debate about Communism, so I'll leave some things out and stay focused on Civ4. I think the way Communism is included in Civ4 is good. You've got The Kremlin and Intelligence Agency, which is very useful if you play an Espionage type of game. And you've got the choice of ignoring it for a while and focusing on other techs and civics without too much penalty.

    I think sometimes, people want Civ to be as realistic as possible, which is an unrealistic expectation to have about a game. It's a strategy game, so many concepts will be simplified to make the game work and be enjoyable.

    I do agree though that the way the civics work is a bit limited, but I think they should be approached from the angle of 'how does this fit in to the game', instead of 'how can I get this ideology in to the game'.
     
  2. Staler87

    Staler87 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    267
    Location:
    Right now? Computer Chair.
    Some of the models are impossible. You can never have perfect competition because it's just not possible. However, economic models also have this weird tendency of being incorrect.

    And how don't Hayek's theories have something to do with the real world.

    Why Keynesian Economics are wrong:

    1. The government will never raise taxes and reduce spending because it isn't popular. All modern day governments are populist.

    2. Even if the government did increase spending (such as in the new deal) it only creates a temporary boom that artificially enhances the economy for a short while. Then the economy crashes again (such as the new deal).

    3. The whole theory behind Keynesian methodologies have been largely disproven by modern economics. Although the method and results are still debated the theory behind them, as laid out in Keynes's theories are completely disregarded today.

    4. Although you may be thinking that this whole artificial boom/bust thing isn't terrible as the economy is still moderated. However you have forgotten about inflation. Keynes's methodologies cause sky high inflation if applied as he said. I generally think that inflation itself is not a good thing, although this may not be shared by many others including yourself, but nobody thinks hyper-inflation is a good thing. But this is exactly what spending tons of money and suddenly introducing more capital into the economy than there are products gets you.

    So everyone being enlisted into the army and paid similar wages reduces income inequality? To me this is the biggest farce in modern economics. War doesn't help the economy it may increase the amount of goods produced and for a little while may seemingly help the economy, but I'm sure I don't need to list examples of war bankrupting countries and ruining the economy. Rations, enlistment, heavy debt incursion, and mass citizen buying of governmental bonds are not signs of a healthy economy even if the GDP is up.

    Both are relevant. Both inject more currency into the economy than there is actual capital.

    What law did the US destroy to stop the truckers unions? As far as I know throughout history the government has been far more interested in breaking up unions than anything else. Regulation drives small business out of business.

    Deregulation only helps big business if it is target deregulation designed to help them. Business lobby groups are often some of the first to advocate for more regulations because they know that it will often put competitors out of business. I'm not totally against some government regulation in the economy, all but the most extreme theories have some room for a government in the economy. However it's role should be, as in the words of Milton Friedman, a "referee not an active player". (I'm actually not a huge Friedman fan but this is a good quote).

    I don't really know about the history of trucking in the US but right now in Canada we have a shortage of truckers and wages are going up.

    He is essential talking about deregulation caused by crony capitalists that allowed crony capitalism to occur. All these reforms were heavily pushed by the banking industry. However instead of having the intended effect they allowed banks to make more profit. I think you mistake me for someone who favours complete deregulation of the economy. Do I think this article was totally correct. No. But the way in which the banking reforms were carried out was not a good idea by any stretch of the imagination. Plus the banking companies would have been punished if the government hadn't bailed them out.

    Essentially a modern mixed economy/crony capitalism (I'm not saying there the same thing just the two best definers of the modern economy) is a whole bunch of rich guys playing poker and whenever one loses the public give him a ton of money to continue the game.
     
  3. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,896
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Depends what theories you're talking about. Ever read The Road To Serfdom? That's the Market Fundamentalist Bible, the book that argues that using any tool other than the market to solve any social problem will result in Hitler- or Stalin-like tyranny.
    That's one of Hayek's theories which is patently untrue on its face.

    This has nothing to do with Keynesian economics as such, and it is also obviously false as governments do this literally all the time.

    This isn't specific enough for me to really argue against.

    Again, this is not specific enough to argue against. What "whole theory" are you talking about?
    Btw, it is wrong that Keynes is 'completely disregarded' by modern economics. I am curious, how much formal economics education do you have? Because even in macro 101 you learn what are called Keynesian macroeconomics. The mainstream consensus is around something called "new Keynesian" economics which purports to be a synthesis of Keynesian theory and classical economics, primarily via the IS-LM model.

    My own argument would be that economics has made itself more-or-less worthless as a policy tool to the extent it has disregarded Keynes. But it's important to note that Keynes shied away from some of the more radical implications of his own ideas. A Polish Marxist economist named Michael Kalecki independently came up with the theory of the business cycle and of effective demand and he was able to perceive the implications far more clearly, due to a lack of classical dogma clouding the issues.

    Ahh, so this is a better argument, there is actually something substantial to grasp here.
    What you are saying is in fact (again) untrue. Inflation does not correlate with government spending, for the simple reason that there is not a fixed amount of capital sitting around.
    All spending (including private spending!) has the potential to create inflation, if it isn't accompanied by productive investment that increases the supply of real goods and services available for consumption. The question is whether your spending is productive - there is no straightforward relationship between government spending and inflation. This can be confirmed by comparing the budget deficit with the inflation rate in any country over time - there is no strong relationship.

    This is all very muddled and some of these measures of a healthy economy reflect your prejudices (government bonds mean the economy is unhealthy? lol) rather than objective analysis.

    During World War II the government very effectively managed the economy to produce an unheard-of volume of war material. Massive amounts of resources were put to highly efficient use driving the Allied war effort. Consumption was effectively deferred through the use of bonds and other means, in order to limit demand-driven inflation, because so much production was being diverted to the war rather than used for consumer goods.
    After the war the government's policies very effectively shifted the war-economy to a consumer-goods-oriented economy.

    After the war, far from being "ruined," the US economy enjoyed two decades of unprecedented growth and prosperity for unheard-of numbers of people.

    Your idea that the economy of ww2 and after was 'unhealthy' is just silly.

    Ahh, you claim to be into Austrian economics and yet you've apparently never read the only Austrian economist of any worth (Schumpeter).

    One of the major features of capitalism is that investment requires money. Production is M-C-M, money is used to produce commodities which are sold for more money.

    So spending, provided it is done intelligently, can of course drive up the amount of real production, neutralizing inflation.

    I will address the last two points later when I have more time. I don't have detailed knowledge of the trucking industry but it's a truism that deregulation destroyed the power of the Teamsters union over the industry.
    As for financialization and financial deregulation, that has contributed to inequality in all kinds of ways. You could fill up books with that stuff.
     
  4. Macksideshow

    Macksideshow Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    382
    My suggestion would be to only allow commerce to be converted to culture while boosting hammer and food production. Ban slavery whilst in Communist government though so the food boost isn't OP.

    Force the civ into a hammer and/or specialist economy.

    It's somewhat accurate to the ideals of communism (although I am no expert) and it makes what is usually a sub optimal play style optimal so promotes a different than usual approach which reflects communism being radically different to other types of societies and, as a bonus, would be novel and fun.

    For me the commerce to beakers, food to hammers (with a few GPs thrown in) approach is becoming boring. This could be an opportunity to mix that up.
     
  5. Staler87

    Staler87 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    267
    Location:
    Right now? Computer Chair.
    I've enjoyed arguing with you, as I have always enjoyed arguments, but It began taking up too much of my time. Thanks for the debate and I'll leave with this one quote:

    "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

    -Friedrich August von Hayek
     
  6. Pomphis

    Pomphis Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    How do you explain germany ? The german government raised taxes and cut spending to reduce the deficit, and Mrs. Merkel is still chancellor. Germany had some stimulus, and we have neither crash not inflation.
     
  7. Pomphis

    Pomphis Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    At least in some western countries the bank bailouts included taking lots of shares in the banks, in other words wiping out to a considerable amount the previous owners.
     

Share This Page