Proposal: prerequisites for a great depression

[AnotherPacifist]

The excess production theory isn't the only one out there, you know, at least by wikipedia. There's too much easy credit, there's the Marxist theory, there's lack of confidence in the markets, and excess tariffs. There's no way to model lack of deficit spending or inequality of income. So here's several proposals.

 

[Úmarth]

I agree Great Depression does need to be tweaked a little to make it more avoidable but I'll abstain from voting because there's a huge blind spot in my brain when it comes to economics

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Well, I never took ec 101 (or Ec 10 at my college) either, but a brief glance at wikipedia and what I remembered about western civ was enough. Great depressions just don't happen out of the blue. If England had a great depression 4 turns (12 years) after Adam Smith wrote his book, there would never have been an industrial revolution.

 

[kbk]

One of the things about a free market is that it functions cyclically. In other words there are periods of expansion and contraction.

While, we are all familiar with THE great depression starting in 1929 (of which there are many factors, the above being only a very brief summary of causes), recessions are common. There were also as were other depressions before the great depression; particularly noteworthy was the long depression of the late 1800s.

My suggestions:
1) Depressions are worldwide. Its fine that a depression affects stability in other countries. But I think the effect should be virtually universal. Everyone should be affected simultaneously. We shouldn't see one country have a great depression which affects other countries, and then 5 turns later, another country have the great depression.

2) Other economic systems should be hit too, Mecantilism especially so. Arguably one of the causes of the depression leading to the war of 1812 was the US adopting a more isolationist (mercantile?) trading strategy due to the war in Europe. Communism shouldn't make you completely immune. However, it should have a substantially weaker effect on communist countries.

3) Depressions should maybe affect countries that have discovered Corporation, and not be linked exclusively to free markets. This would help represent how some counties could be isolated, or not yet industrialized. I think the economic cycle is more tied to the industrial revolution than to just having a free market.

4) Even free markets should be able to adopt controls. While the US is not completely a free market, its arguably as close a working model as we have. There are numerous controls that exist to blunt the effect of the economic cycles (e.g., federal reserve, insured bank deposits, etc). Hypothetically, this has mad us immune since the great depression, but then, the most severe depression cycles seem to be 50-80 years, so we don't really know yet, do we?

5) They should be less frequent. There have been numerous recessions, but depressions are very few and far between. Depending on exactly how you define them, there have been 3 in the last 200 years. I don't know offhand the length of time between depressions in the game, but it seems to happen a lot. Maybe this is just because they are not globally linked, but rather work like dominoes in the game. Still, I think they should be modeled more like the plague, and about as frequent.

 

[onedreamer]

the name of the event is Great Depression, not depression or recession, so I don't agree about the considerations on Mercantilism. Also, this event is triggered by adoption of Free Market, hence apart from the realistic considerations, I think this poll's aim is solely strategic, and strategically speaking it makes no sense to penalize a civ's Mercantilism if another civ adopts Free Market. Free Market is already blatantly overpowered compared to Mercantilism. In order for this to be any good, you should be a really big power, for a small civ Free Market is a no brainer, even more on Rhye's map. Hence I think Rhye put the Great Depression in to rebalance a bit this disparity. I think it works fine, the Great Depression is harsh but hey, you can always avoid Free Market. If it really must be softened up though, I would vote for both "x number of turns" and "corporations also" (I haven't voted since I can't vote this way). But at this point I would really move Mercantilism to Guilds, which IMO would make about a gazillion times more sense.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Your argument about small civs needing free market is exactly the reason why great depressions should be nerfed. In order to survive a "bad" economy, you should adopt free market for the extra trade routes. But if you don't do it right away, you're penalized for being in decentralization and knowing economics, and being a small civ, mercantilism is suicide. And you haven't had time to build custom houses or trading company to "improve" your economy. (in fact my Maya game I saved a great engineer just for that purpose--TC was built right after economics was known). So hence the suggestion that great depressions should happen after corporation is known.

Mercantilism after guilds is good, gives the player more time to use mercantilism.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Depression, recession, oppression, impression...

 

[kbk]

the name of the event is Great Depression, not depression or recession

I make no claims that recessions should be considered. Those are the result of smaller oscillations in the cycle, but even though the event is called "the great depression," I see no reason not to equate that to historical depressions. I pointed out that there were probably 3 of these in the past. Typically, we see many more than 3 in a late game. And at least the last 2, at the time were called "great" anyways. Now we call the first great depression the long depression. Its a lot like world war 1, was called the great war, before they had another one.

As far as the civic balance issue, civic choice is civic choice. Not all civics are created equally, and different civics will of course be preferred depending on the era. Why should we make hereditary rule as powerful as police state?

I'd be happy if the event was more logical than it appears to be right now. Right now the great depression event has a far cry from that.

Depression, recession, oppression, impression...

Help, help, I'm being repressed!

 

[blizzrd]

I didn't vote for any of those options because I didn't like any of them. You forgot to include an option for "none of the above".

I think that currently Great Depressions affect neighbouring civs, sort of like the way plague spreads. But I think they should just be global events and that all civs get a penalty but civs that were already in Mercantilism when the event triggered should get a lesser penalty (but still some sort of a penalty).

 

[onedreamer]

As far as the civic balance issue, civic choice is civic choice. Not all civics are created equally, and different civics will of course be preferred depending on the era. Why should we make hereditary rule as powerful as police state?

banking and economy are one after the other. There isn't really a timeframe worth mentioning between the two, surely not an era, hence they need to be balanced in order to make sense. In a random Civ4 Pangaea map they are more balanced, not so in RFC.

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

Why not the more Banks you have, the less risk of a great depression? If you have Wall Street the risk is even smaller. It would show how central banks can try to control interest rates and inflation to try and avoid these things or maim that part of the economic cycle(depressions,recessions). You have to remember that in the 1930's there weren't big banks that could adjust interest rates like there are today.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Well, the opposite could be true too. The more banks you have, potentially you could have more easy credit (which was one of the causes of the Great Depression). Also, central banks can be ineffectual to produce inflation (one proposed cause of the monetary contraction was that the Federal Reserve didn't have the gold to back its money, which it was still in the laws to have gold to back money up).

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and it was formed specifically to prevent bubbles, so yes, it could have adjusted interest rates if it wanted to.

Maybe a random even like spend $x to "jumpstart" the economy like the New Deal can end the great depression?

 

[kbk]

Maybe after you reach a certain tech, like maybe Communism, you can build a Federal Reserve small wonder which would reduce the effects of a depression.

In the US economy, the federal reserve controls inflation by setting interest rates. When rates are low, there is more access to credit, and thus more money in the system (e.g., inflation). Conversely, rates can be raised to slow dangerously rapid expansion. Of course, stagflation is just really difficult to deal with. The fed can also change the amount of money banks are required to have to have on hand, but this is a lot like using a sledgehammer to nail together a picture frame, so its basically never done. By controlling inflation, (either up or down), the fed attempts to block large expansions or large contraction in the economy.

The Federal Reserve has seen a several incarnations in the past, and even though you point out that it could have adjusted rates leading up to the great depression, the US government was still embracing laissez-faire, so it basically never occurred to anyone until it was too late.

 

[Úmarth]

That's not a bad idea. Although obviously it should be called something more country-neutral thank Federal Reserve. Central Bank perhaps.

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

This is what I was trying to get at but kbk's idea may make more sense.

 

[civhelp121]

I think kbk's ideas are the best, but regardless, none of this matters unless Rhye himself is interested in this. So, does anyone know if he is interested? or maybe he could come here and make a comment or something

 

[blizzrd]

I think kbk's ideas are the best, but regardless, none of this matters unless Rhye himself is interested in this.

That has never stopped anyone from posting in this forum before AFAIK.

 

[civhelp121]

*points to question and answer forum* I said there basically that I was wrong in implying that ideas should be posted only if Rhye says he might implement it, but that changing the way that economic stability works would be such a big change it warrents a response. He doesn't have to, of course, but it would be good.

 

[Rhye]

Again, sorry if I can't reply but I read everything and take note.
I usually pick the threads marked in bold beginning from the bottom, and a few days may pass until I open them

 

[The Q-Meister]

If GDs could be restricted to free markets that would be great; I've had them under State Property via 'The Great Depression in X country is negatively affecting our economy."