Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Discussion of the newest version of the game
User avatar
pigsnoutman
Type II Robot
Type II Robot
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby pigsnoutman » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:24 pm

Oksbad wrote:Why does tightening gambling restrictions eliminate organized crime? Don't organized crime members profit from excessive bans/taxes on alcohol (prohibition anyone?), gambling, drugs, tobacco etc? And why doesn't high taxes/restrictions on alcohol/drugs/tobacco increase organized crime?

I agree, you CANNOT have gambling without organised crime. I don't think gambling is the largest cause for organised crime...
Congratulations, you have found the hidden message I hope you enjoy your sucess http://www.youfail.org the website is great visit www.pointlesssites.com a great time waster
scylfing
Type III Robot
Type III Robot
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 1:42 am

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby scylfing » Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:30 pm

I think he's saying that tightening gambling restrictions shouldn't reduce organized crime because organized crime profits from restrictions more than they profit from open-market operations.
Liberal+++, Capitalist+++, Environmentalist+, Youth++
rboni
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:20 am
Location: Australia, Perth

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby rboni » Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:40 pm

cliffski wrote:I just did a long playthrough, to test the imbalances caused by a fix for the ministers bug :D and I've come to a few conclusions on some potential tweaks. Let me know what people think of these:

Air quality is too easy to fix. the policies that improve it are too effective and easy.
The market meltdown isn't enough of a big deal, and should be more severe.
Small business grants are too good value for money, with no downside.
Should legal aid annoy conservatives? (in that its subsidising evil thieves and criminals from our taxes etc)


Thoughts?



Post-Keynesian (heterodox) theories state that trade imbalances between countries is the cause of international economic volatility. If you wanted to make the market meltdown more severe you could link it to your overseas sector in a future version of the game.
Last edited by rboni on Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
rboni
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:20 am
Location: Australia, Perth

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby rboni » Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:52 am

Another policy to consider is business incubation. Programmes for business start-ups that usually involve technology and innovation enterprises.
Last edited by rboni on Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
rboni
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:20 am
Location: Australia, Perth

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby rboni » Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:44 am

Is it possible to have tax deductions in the game? I was thinking of Corporate tax deductions on capital investment and depreciation. This would be a good policy to have to reduce technology backwater and increase technology advantage as well as increase GDP.

A Capital gains tax could reduce economic volatility by discouraging speculative investments and encouraging more long-term investments.
Last edited by rboni on Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
rboni
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:20 am
Location: Australia, Perth

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby rboni » Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:03 am

The graphs for policies, statistics and situations, have a maximum and minimum point which they can’t progress past. Would the game benefit if some or all of these limitations where scrapped?
rboni
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:20 am
Location: Australia, Perth

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby rboni » Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:48 am

Have you thought about having a corporatisation policy for the public sector? Separating the public sector from the public service, by creating statutory authorities or quangos, run along similar lines to private companies, with similar reporting requirements and entitlements and their own board of directors.

I know the Legal Aid Commission here has been structured like a community organisation or charity with similar reporting requirements and entitlements, and its own board. An exception to this being that employee salaries and conditions are still covered by the public service collective bargaining agreement.



http://www.ncc.gov.au/pdf/AST5Ov-003.pdf
Last edited by rboni on Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
rboni
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:20 am
Location: Australia, Perth

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby rboni » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:19 am

The extension of corporatisation to the public service is called commercialisation. This where departments charge for services provided or assets sold at a commercial rate to both internal and external clients.
PrometheianFire
Junior Line Worker
Junior Line Worker
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby PrometheianFire » Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:23 pm

I've noticed that there are several policy effects which do not reflect reality.

Alchohol laws: Presently, banning alcohol leads to a reduction in crime. The designers may want to look up that little American experiment called "Prohibition." Restrictive alcohol laws should increase crime but also increase lifespan and please parents.

Narcotics Laws: The illegality of drugs has been soundly proven to be one of the most significant causes of violent crime. However, narcotics policy in the game presently has no effect on crime at all. Decriminalizing drugs should reduce violent crime and reduce productivity. Total ban of narcotics should have strong increasing impact on violent crime.

Gun laws: The slider shows that increased firearm availability increases violent crime. However, the converse is true. For instance, when the UK banned all handgun ownership in 1997 after eliminating almost all legal rifle and shotgun ownership, the result was and continues to be a significant rise in violent crime, as criminals need no longer fear the threat of deadly force. By contrast, Switzerland and Finland, two nations with very high firearm ownership rates (Switzerland actually requires all adult males to keep a military rifle and ammunition in their homes), violent crime is quite low. In American cities, those with more strict gun laws have higher violent crime rates, but in cases where guns are made more accessable to law-abiding citizens, violent crime drops dramatically.
In short - fewer gun restrictions should upset parents and liberals, but reduce crime. Total bans should please liberals and parents but increase crime.
User avatar
ohms_law
Line Manager
Line Manager
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby ohms_law » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:37 am

Agreed, Agreed, and Agreed.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
User avatar
pigsnoutman
Type II Robot
Type II Robot
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby pigsnoutman » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:22 am

You can't compare the UK to switzerland. Guns are probably shown to both increase and decrease different crime rates, and I don't understand what you mean by
PrometheianFire wrote: as criminals need no longer fear the threat of deadly force. .

A heavily armed criminal might feel more confident attacking a victim, but clearly they are less likely to fight other criminals. I dunno, but I reacon that it is hopelessly complex for democracy 2.
Prohabition massivsly increased organised crime/blackmarket. A small increase in availability of alcohol would probably increase crime, while so would a ban, which would fuel gang warfare etc. Banning Narcotics certainly increase crime, again though the black market/organised crime. I should add I think the black market should be changed to increase with very high taxes on alcohol/tobacco, and high resistriction with guns/etc.
Congratulations, you have found the hidden message I hope you enjoy your sucess http://www.youfail.org the website is great visit www.pointlesssites.com a great time waster
PrometheianFire
Junior Line Worker
Junior Line Worker
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby PrometheianFire » Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:23 pm

You can't compare the UK to switzerland. Guns are probably shown to both increase and decrease different crime rates, and I don't understand what you mean by criminals no longer fear threat of deadly force."


As for the comparing of nations, certainly no two nations are alike, but if the premise is that greater legal availability of firearms leads to higher crime, there are enough examples to provide a reasonably valid sample. Countries with fairly liberal gun laws (I.E. easy for law abiding citizens to own or even carry concealed firearms) include Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Germany, Austria, New Zealand, and also Yemen and Serbia. Violent crime is low in all of these nations.

Yemen and Serbia - why those are hotbeds of violence are they not? While they do have bloody recent histories, and Yemen in particular is deplorable in its treatment of women, violent crime within those nations is very low.

By contrast, India has the 3rd lowest per-capita gun ownership ranking in the world, but the world's highest murder rate. Columbia has the 7th lowest gun ownership rank, and I think we all know how violent and crime-addled that poor nation is.

Clearly more is going on than just the availability of guns. In the case of Columbia and also the United States (which I purposely left off the list above) drug cartels and gangs fighting the police and amongst themselves are an enormous source of violent crime.

But back to the issue of how legal gun ownership affects crime rates. From a criminal's perspective, if you know that there is a chance your intended victim may be armed, would you be more or less likely to attack? The crime-reducing effect of legal gun ownership is extremely well documented in the works of independent criminologists John Lott and Gary Kleck, both of whom have recieved awards from the society of criminologists for their works, which have been peer-reviewed and stand up to rigorous study and questioning. The simple fact is that when law-abiding citizens are permitted to keep and bear arms, crime, particularly violent crime, decreases. It's also important to note that what we are talking about here is not issues of vigilante justice or "wild west" shootouts between criminals and citizens. In the 39 U.S. states which now allow citizens (following varying degrees of registration and training requirements) to carry a concealed firearm, this effect has not resulted. Another important fact, revealed by the works of Lott and Kleck is that in 98% of cases in which a potential crime victim responds with a firearm to an attacker, no shots are fired. The attacker simply flees. (this statistic is from 10 years of data from the FBI's national database of all reported crime).
rboni
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:20 am
Location: Australia, Perth

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby rboni » Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:47 am

High earnings should affect the wealthy.
Middle earnings should affect middle income
Poor earnings should affect the poor
Average earnings should affect everybody
mechasaprophyte
Type II Robot
Type II Robot
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:45 am

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby mechasaprophyte » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:11 pm

I think the game currently handles narcotics well--since legalizing drugs actually can decrease crime, but only indirectly, to the extent that the drug trade is connected with organized crime--but agree that it would make sense for the extreme end of alcohol prohibition to also interact with organized crime.

As for gun control, while there are indeed credible criminologists who have claimed that gun ownership reduces crime, some very significant criticisms of their work have nonetheless been raised, and there are at least as many equally valid studies out there that have reported the opposite effect. Suffice it to say that the gun debate is an insanely complex one, and, absent any clear answers, I'm okay with the simulated effects being somewhat speculative (that said, don't get me started about the death penalty ;-) ).
User avatar
ohms_law
Line Manager
Line Manager
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts

Postby ohms_law » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:14 pm

I think the game currently handles narcotics well--since legalizing drugs actually can decrease crime, but only indirectly, to the extent that the drug trade is connected with organized crime

That goes straight to our point, though. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but currently drug policy doesn't affect Organized Crime at all. I can see it slightly decreasing crime at the "outlawed" setting, but it should then also increase Organized Crime (and Violent Crime, for that matter). Then the effects could be reversed at the other extreme.
Alcohol should be basically the same (and guns too, for that matter. Albeit, to a lesser extent).

As for the gun control debate, there are a few different aspects to it. First and foremost, there are differences between environments (city, suburbs, and rural). Also of vital importance is the type of crime that is being discussed. Democracy 2 includes Crime, Violent Crime, and Organized Crime statistics, which fits well with gun control. More gun control should slightly increase Crime (the criminals are less afraid), decrease Violent Crime (fewer guns floating around to commit armed robberies with, for example), and slightly increase Organized Crime (black market gun trading).

As with most things in life, all of these political questions are probably best dealt with at the moderate position. Absolute prohibition is largely just as bad as absolute freedom, although the problems at either extreme differ in character.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann

Return to “Democracy 2”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest