Kinda.
People just started to mock it right off the bat, since it was clear sign of a bait thread. So a new image got picked. Except it even faster became a filter to know it's just the most moronic shit
The original painting's context was that a school burned down and this guy was the only one who objected to building a new one for no real reason other than contrarianism.
It's just the ultimate American moment: >I have the right to act moronic, and I'm going to use it, damn it!
And they celebrate this sort of shit as a virtue.
Guess it has always been about morons going full moron then
The original painting's context was that a school burned down and this guy was the only one who objected to building a new one for no real reason other than contrarianism.
>Only months earlier, Trachte explained, James Edgerton Sr. had lost his entire herd of dairy cattle to a brucellosis outbreak. Government-mandated culling to prevent the spread of the bacteria, found in unpasteurized milk of infected animals, had spared but one heifer on the family farm. No cows meant no milk — and no milk check.
>Jim Edgerton Sr. had been an active supporter of education in Arlington, Trachte and Buddy Edgerton explained. But facing economic disaster, he was concerned about his ability to afford the tax increase that would fund a new school. And so he stood up that night and voiced his concern.
Also once the decision was made to build the school, he worked on its construction and ended up being one of the crew foremen.
He literally did nothing wrong.
>MUH TAXES
We are reaching American levels that shouldn't be even feasible.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>get income fricked by disease >govt then wants you to give them more money >you don't have money >morons on the internet get mad over you not wanting to be poorer 80 years later
Crazy stuff, isn't it.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Euroslaves wouldn't understand.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>euroserf moment
5 months ago
Anonymous
Where the frick are you from, what kind of shit hole full of useless serfs have the act of paying taxes as some kind of virtue? Are you perhaps underage? I guess you just don't work maybe? I'm legitimately curious
5 months ago
Anonymous
>If you aren't Ameritard and don't consider taxes theft, you must be underage and living in a shithole
Ever wondered why your country is so fricked up? Why the education system doesn't work? Why the medical bills are so shit and ruinous? Why the roads are so fricking god-awful, despite entire country being dominated by car traffic? You probably didn't. But that's what you get for keeping few hundred bucks by the end of the year in your pocket - living in a third world country with first world tech... if one can afford it.
And before you start blasting something about freedom, immigrants or whatever: last time I've checked, everyone was trying to take my country by storm, while the only people coming to you are the ones you paid for it.
5 months ago
Anonymous
If you give our government more taxes they'll just use it to frick us over. There's no winning unless we get rid of all our parasitic subhuman politicians. Even with other countries' corruption they manage to not be as corrupt as everyone in the US government.
5 months ago
Anonymous
You are not implying that bad infrastructure is caused by people not paying taxes right? Surely that's not the case. You didn't answer my question. You have to be 18 to post here
5 months ago
Anonymous
europeans will unironically type this while their own infrastructure begins to decay despite the taxes they pay
5 months ago
Anonymous
5 months ago
Anonymous
The next time you see someone say "American education lol" or "do Americans REALLY?" remember that THIS is the kind of person who's typing it
5 months ago
Anonymous
What? Were you expecting Yurogays to NOT conform to their pretentiously snobby stereotypes? Kek!
So let me get this straight >Image used for WW2 propaganda purposes about the strength of community through liberty >Actually about some asshat that throw a fit over his personal money being taken to build school for the community >After all, his 5 cents were more important than the fact there is a school nearby, and he had the right to say that aloud, which he did >All while the country was getting geared up for war-time effort, where personal liberties meant squat
This image was bad without the backstory, but with it, it's just horrendous.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>>All while the country was getting geared up for war-time effort, where personal liberties meant squat
Your rights don't end during emergencies. I should not step on you just because I think its important
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Your rights don't end during emergencies
Yeah... and then the "war" on terror happened.
>get income fricked by disease >govt then wants you to give them more money >you don't have money >morons on the internet get mad over you not wanting to be poorer 80 years later
Crazy stuff, isn't it.
>Crucial local infrastructure? Nah, better keep 10 bucks in my wallet
And then you wonder why the country is mostly using shit build in the 70s. Obviously must be the fault of da jus, Black folk and females.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>da jus, Black folk and females.
I mean, all those are objectively awful.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>the "war" on terror happened
i don't understand
you don't like the post-9/11 erosion of liberty, but because it happened, you now retroactively scorn the idea of personal liberty ever having mattered during any historical crisis?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Let me walk you through this in small steps, so you can grasp the very simple concept >HURR MUH LIBERTY! >DURR ALWAYS EXPRESS YOURSELF IN THE DUMBEST WAYS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE WE CAN! >War on Terror, huh? >I guess I will now voluntarily decrease my actual, personal liberties, all on my own, because the government is fighting imaginary enemy in made-up war >BUT DON'T YOU DARE TAKING MY FREEDOM!
5 months ago
Anonymous
ah, i see
you conflated the 1940s dairy farmer from the painting with the strawman of a post-9/11 average american you learned from the mass media, then came to /vst/ to assert that this mental frankenstein is to blame for things that /misc/ blames on Black folk, israelites and women
of course, how could i have misunderstood
5 months ago
Anonymous
>of course, how could i have misunderstood
You'll rarely go wrong if you treat anyone speaking in non-sequiturs like that as if they're actually insane and ignore them as much as possible.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Point >(You)
Sad
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Implying that 10 bucks wasn't a lot back then
Black person, this wasn't pocket change to the man.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Examples? What are those?
Must be tough being literal-minded autismo.
5 months ago
Anonymous
10 bucks in 1940 would be 240 bucks today. Of yearly, rather than monthly or weekly budget you've got. This is peanuts. Always have been. Also, consult [...], you dumb fricking Black person.
>Who needs schools, when you can save up less than a weekly minimal pay >[Freedom intensifies]
No wonder you are a nation of morons that has to pay rest of the world for a brain drain. From tax money, no less.
autistically minded moids are so absolutely worthless when theyre not aeroplane engineers or software developers or whatever
(you)
5 months ago
Anonymous
10 bucks in 1940 would be 240 bucks today. Of yearly, rather than monthly or weekly budget you've got. This is peanuts. Always have been. Also, consult
>Examples? What are those?
Must be tough being literal-minded autismo.
, you dumb fricking Black person.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Who needs schools, when you can save up less than a weekly minimal pay >[Freedom intensifies]
No wonder you are a nation of morons that has to pay rest of the world for a brain drain. From tax money, no less.
5 months ago
Anonymous
autistically minded moids are so absolutely worthless when theyre not aeroplane engineers or software developers or whatever
5 months ago
Anonymous
Schools are far from crucial, you can homeschool your kids no problem
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Your rights don't end during emergencies
Oh my, I would recommend you to read more history but there wouldn't be a point because you already forgot the frickery that was covid quarantine.
5 months ago
Anonymous
There's no point in personal liberties if they can be stripped at the drop of a hat, especially when that hat drop is some war going on halfway across the world. The US has doing this bullshit for more than 100 years at this point and it keeps doing it these days because it wants to be the world's babysitter, which also conveniently benefits the politicians making these decisions.
5 months ago
Anonymous
[...] >MUH TAXES
We are reaching American levels that shouldn't be even feasible.
The issue wasn't the tax it was that he wouldn't have been able to afford the tax. He was utterly broke. He asked for a lower taxed amount instead and other ways to fund the school's construction instead including, like this anon
Also once the decision was made to build the school, he worked on its construction and ended up being one of the crew foremen.
He literally did nothing wrong.
said, community labour which he joined in on.
5 months ago
Anonymous
... yes, and?
How does this deviate from "muh taxes"? Do you even know how taxation works? If you are broke, they can't take from you sum you don't have, you dumb moron. And he wasn't even from a state with poll taxes, so it wouldn't affect him anyway. Him standing out is the epitome of "I'm moronic and have no clue how taxes even work, but I will oppose them on principle, never mind this is for the burned down school". His "concerns" aren't even valid. It's just a dumb frick protesting for the sake of protesting, over issue that doesn't even apply to him.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>If you are broke, they can't take from you sum you don't have, you dumb moron
lol
5 months ago
Anonymous
>why do you care about taxes if you have no money to pay the taxes
He's likely broke because the taxes already siphoned all his money away.
5 months ago
Anonymous
He's broke, because "da goberment" took his cows. Never mind he was moronic enough to get all of them infected (it takes a lot of effort and open neglect to spread brucellosis to an entire herd), the evil goberment culled his herd and now is trying to tax him!
>they can't take from you sum you don't have
Are you moronic? It would have been a specially levied tax for an immediate need, not regular income taxes and the latter can absolutely take money from you even if you have none. If that wasn't the case people would just spend their money before tax day. "Oops sorry I have nothing to pay taxes with".
The rest is your personal sperging as, once again, he didn't oppose the tax in its entirety but wanted it lessened and other ways of seeking financing for the school (something he supported besides) discussed like community labour. And it absolutely concerned him, that's why we have voting in much of the world as a proxy for discussion on what your taxes go into. That said this whole thing is bait on your end so I'm not sure why I'm replying.
Nta, but the original matter was about rising a sum of 14.5 bucks per citizen.
Which was about the sum on minimal weekly wage back then. So him protesting about a weekly wage being taken away and thus putting him in danger... yeah, no. Especially since ultimately he worked on the construction, precisely to not pay, according to something that was already written in the brochure he is holding on that image.
Guy was simply moronic farmer, plain and simple.
5 months ago
Anonymous
That's 300 bucks today tard. Very few people could just tank a 300 dollar charge easy.
5 months ago
Anonymous
And a weekly minimal federal pay is 290. Your point?
5 months ago
Anonymous
What the other anon said: that's literally the amount of money you get for working for a week as, dunno, burger flipper or the mailman. They literally can't pay you less. Considering the guy's farm was done for, his only fricking prospect was getting other job anyway.
5 months ago
Anonymous
And a weekly minimal federal pay is 290. Your point?
This is the middle of the great depression. While there was no official minimum wage yet, the basic labour wage would be around 50 cents an hour so it would be double the minimum pay at the least. There are no other jobs and it's not like he was asking for it to be 0 just less and he contributed in other ways anyway.
5 months ago
Anonymous
It's 1940, you dumb shit. Depression pretty much ended by '37. And anyone who weathered till '33 had their situation secured.
I get it, it's easier to insist that the guy was "standing up to his rights", but the sad reality is that he was a dumb dairy yokel who had no idea what he's even doing, and another dumb moron found his story inspirational enough to draw it as a propaganda poster.
Moral of the story: don't let WASP urbanites find inspiration in lives of stupid common people.
5 months ago
Anonymous
1940 - $0.30. Even fricking less. And he wasn't the only person who lost his cows anyway and it was an issue enough for their proposal to pass.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>moron can't even do basic math.
40 x 0.3 is 12
Sum is 14.5
Thus: guy has to work for 6 days to pay it off.
Woe him, the poor soul!
Alternatively: the sum is 300 bucks, guy is paid 290 for 5 days of work. He has to work additional 2 hours to get it done. Woe him, the poor soul!
5 months ago
Anonymous
1940 - $0.30. Even fricking less. And he wasn't the only person who lost his cows anyway and it was an issue enough for their proposal to pass.
You are both missing the crucial point here:
What happened with the whole American entrepreneurship?
We are supposed to side with some guy, because he can't afford something, but in the same time, we are supposed to stand for his defense of the individual rights and liberties? What the frick? If you can't make it on your own, it's only your own fricking fault. This is the creed on which the whole nation has been build since at least 1820s.
So yeah, it is quite literally his fault that he's poor and his only employable skill was milking his cows. Freedom of speech also means I can freely call out such moronic shit.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>moron can't even do basic math.
40 x 0.3 is 12
Sum is 14.5
Thus: guy has to work for 6 days to pay it off.
Woe him, the poor soul!
Alternatively: the sum is 300 bucks, guy is paid 290 for 5 days of work. He has to work additional 2 hours to get it done. Woe him, the poor soul!
Pic related
>they can't take from you sum you don't have
Are you moronic? It would have been a specially levied tax for an immediate need, not regular income taxes and the latter can absolutely take money from you even if you have none. If that wasn't the case people would just spend their money before tax day. "Oops sorry I have nothing to pay taxes with".
The rest is your personal sperging as, once again, he didn't oppose the tax in its entirety but wanted it lessened and other ways of seeking financing for the school (something he supported besides) discussed like community labour. And it absolutely concerned him, that's why we have voting in much of the world as a proxy for discussion on what your taxes go into. That said this whole thing is bait on your end so I'm not sure why I'm replying.
5 months ago
Anonymous
> Never mind he was moronic enough to get all of them infected (it takes a lot of effort and open neglect to spread brucellosis to an entire herd
I didn’t you were a dairy farmer on top of being underaged and clearly never paying taxes before. That’s crazy.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>they can't take from you sum you don't have
Are you moronic? It would have been a specially levied tax for an immediate need, not regular income taxes and the latter can absolutely take money from you even if you have none. If that wasn't the case people would just spend their money before tax day. "Oops sorry I have nothing to pay taxes with".
The rest is your personal sperging as, once again, he didn't oppose the tax in its entirety but wanted it lessened and other ways of seeking financing for the school (something he supported besides) discussed like community labour. And it absolutely concerned him, that's why we have voting in much of the world as a proxy for discussion on what your taxes go into. That said this whole thing is bait on your end so I'm not sure why I'm replying.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>... yes, and? >They're called poor people for a reason >Build local reform support
i dislike it because once you 'figure it out', every run becomes the same and this is extremely apparent in a game like vicky 2
the fact you can figure it out is also why others like it so much. it's not that victoria 2 is shit, its just that what is wanted in a game differs from person to person
It's not even about getting it figured out being bad by itself. It's that the solution to your problems requires a highly specific pre-set, and if you can't meet the requirements - tough being you, because you won't be able to do anything else.
I probably just suck at it but it feels like one of those idle games where your input is limited. I also know that Paradox's games rely on more or less fixed events, which makes it seem even more like a game that plays itself. Though at the same time I have seen images (probably some from V2 too) of weird countries taking over other countries so you do have a decent amount of control in some way. The concept of the game seems cool though.
You just suck. It's not that the input is limited, it's that it's most effective in very specific ways, and knowing them is a mix of experience, reading wikia and online guides.
The difference is that Vicky 3 has a potential to be a better game, while Vicky 2 is in current form the better game. The real question is if 3 will ever realise that potential, and so far, no real hope for that. I get what they are trying with that game, I enjoy most of the ideas, but the execution is just lackluster.
In a perfect world, there is Vicky 2.5, which combines the good elements of both games, and none of their weaknesses, along with filling up the shit both of those games are missing... but we are not living in a perfect world.
>while Vicky 2 is in current form the better game.
Can you tell me what you actually like about Vic 2, because most the game mechanics seem pretty terrible to me. The only thing it offers that 3 doesnt have that i can think of is that you have control over army movement during war.
Like in Vicky 2 as such, or like it better when compared with 3?
Because those are two separate questions.
Since you didn't specify, let's do both then (and ignoring the military) >Vicky 2 on its own
The game is build on the Keynesian economic theory and if you know what the sliders are doing and how income is spread over all three strats, you can get everything humming at 200% efficiency within a single year. This alone makes Vicky 2 more advanced economic model than majority of economic games.
Spheres are an effective tool to peacefully spread your influence. They aren't perfect, but they get job done.
And this one is going to be controversial, but I like the automated construction by capitalists. Yes, I know they don't match bonuses with local RGOs and pre-existing factories, but they provide meaningful employment and economic growth far better than the RGOs of that state. Including that artillery factory in a state that has population of 1200 people, attracting more due to employment prospects. >Vicky 2 over 3
It has artisans. This can not be over-stated how much this unfricks the game. Removing them was the dumbest design idea when it comes to 3, and subsistence farmers aren't a real replacement.
Research is better. It doesn't mean it is good, but it is leagues ahead in its practical form and AI is never "left behind" with it due to the mechanics practical side.
Trade is profitable. Like a lot.
It has foreign investments, and so far PDX didn't even allude to the idea that 3 will ever get something like that or similar.
In the long run, the lack of construction pool is a better option than the clusterfrick that ultimately mid-game 3 is. Both systems are flawed, but 2's is just less awful in the long run.
Migration is better, since pops travel freely all the time by hundreds and even thousands, rather than in big migratory events of millions OR a literal handful of pops
That doesn't mean 2 is a flawless game or some sort of golden standard. It has many flaws. But it also does a shitload of crucial stuff better than 3
>It has foreign investments, and so far PDX didn't even allude to the idea that 3 will ever get something like that or similar.
Should be what the Spheres of Influence DLC will be doing no? I agree with the rest especially the lack of migration in Vic 3.
Is it even possible to get decent migration to New World in Vicky 3? Other than the mass migration events, that is. I swear, when I see those big numbers in tune of "32 French Labourers migrated last year" I have no idea what the frick is going on... and then you get a migration event and suddenly entire fricking population of affected state moves in, in the process completely and utterly depopulating their starting area.
I think the crazies thing that ever happened to me was first Trial of Tears removing all the Injuns to Oklahoma, then via mass migration utterly depopulated the place and send everyone to Vest Virginia.
5 months ago
Anonymous
It's supposed to be a journal entry where you click a button to set up a migration target every few years. Problem is that it needs civilising mission which the AI struggles to get anywhere near.
5 months ago
Anonymous
So I guess another kudos to Vicky 2 having it all automated.
5 months ago
Anonymous
So I guess another kudos to Vicky 2 having it all automated.
It's one of those really weird decisions Wiz was really insisting on, for no real reason other than "because". Same goes with removing foreign investments. It wasn't as much to re-add them as a DLC, but to simply remove them, period.
5 months ago
Anonymous
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3028647356
Install this mod and you'll get plenty of migration as a New World country. It should be installed by default a la HPM anyway, since it unfricks so many other parts of the game.
5 months ago
Anonymous
If the game relies on "mods will fix it", it's a shit game by default.
t. playing vanilla 2 and mostly playing OG vanilla, too
I don't even think it is feasible to do foreign investments, unless it offers you the option to use your own construction pool to bankroll it.
>It has foreign investments, and so far PDX didn't even allude to the idea that 3 will ever get something like that or similar.
Should be what the Spheres of Influence DLC will be doing no? I agree with the rest especially the lack of migration in Vic 3.
Nta, but right now their proposition looks more like "bankroll the country three different ways!" than "build a fricking banana plantation"
>Trade is profitable. Like a lot.
how? I never even paid attention to trade in vic 2 because it was so unintuitive and mostly did its own arcane things in the background. All the confusion over buying order with regard to spheres and prestige, for example. In Vic 3 trade is something I pay more attention to than possibly anything else because you can actually perceive the influence it has on the economy as a result of local prices, and it also has a tangible effect even beyond diplomacy with trade agreements, customs unions, embargos, etc.
>how
By selling excess shit that goes beyond local demand and demand of your sphere for a tidy profit, plus also tariffs directly influencing your budget. It was a triple bubble, really:
- factories stay 100% profitable
- your pops are paid shitload, so consumption sours
- your capitalists get even more dough to expand your 100% profitable business
To put that into perspective: by 1860s, a semi-industrialised country should be making about 2/3 of its budget via tariffs. For comparison, in 3 you would be hard-pressed to fund via tariffs just the governmental jobs of your nation, and that assuming you've hired less than 50k people - all while being the industrial power No. 1 and the factory of the world.
Also >Can't figure out how to make money on trade in 2 >Insists that trade is important in 3
Trade in 3 exists solely for the Ricardo's comparative advantage logic the game is build upon. It does not generate income, at least not the way it should. Instead, shopkeepers employed by self-created trade hub will pay taxes and consume shit, which will fuel your economy more than trade itself.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Sounds like 3 is just better at modelling economics then. I never cared to learn about trade in 2 because the very first thing I did was set taxes to 100%, then never looked at the budget screen again except to adjust the military supplies slider.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Sounds like 3 is just better at modelling economics then.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Nice argument, but somehow I think the game that has a singular, global flat price for every good isn't the better economic simulation.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Nta, but this literally applies to all Vickies >b-but I have different percentage
Yeah, and that percentage is build on the exact same base, and limited to go either 75% up or below that value.
Vicky 2 didn't have such limits, while operating under similar mechanics for prices, both internal and external. Not my fact that you never figured it out without the game gving you a nice, bolded out "-12%" information that you are making enough of something to decrease the price vs. your demand
5 months ago
Anonymous
*my fault
Nice argument, but somehow I think the game that has a singular, global flat price for every good isn't the better economic simulation.
Either way, you come off as an ignorant frickwit that never even bothered to learn bare basics of gameplay, but already know they are bad and worse
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Vicky 2 didn't have such limits, while operating under similar mechanics for prices, both internal and external.
Does it now? So, I can actually leverage comparative advantage (don't know why it's derided by you tards, it's a widely accepted economic phenomenon) and flood the world with cheap grain as the US with my vast tracts of land and mechanized agriculture? Or playing as Britian, can I destroy the nascent textile industries of less developed countries by dumping my cheap, mass-produced clothing on them? Surely that's all possible, right?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>don't know why it's derided by you tards, it's a widely accepted economic phenomenon
Because that "phenomenon" is counter-intuitive to the goals of the game. Did you even played it? By logic of Ricardo, if you start as a backwater, you should STAY as a backwater, because it is profitable. Never build anything new or different, just expand what you start with. Not making furniture and paper, while sitting on prime lumber? Doesn't matter, you didn't start with it, so you should never build any or make your own, it;s better to import.
Which is why nobody takes Ricardo serious since the 1890s, and he completely fall off from anything but historical curiosity by 1940s. >Surely that's all possible, right?
Yes. The grain one would be tough, given both the bottom low price of grain by default and the fact everyone is overproducing it, but it is doable. And ironically, it would be even harder to pull in 3.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Because that "phenomenon" is counter-intuitive to the goals of the game. Did you even played it? By logic of Ricardo, if you start as a backwater, you should STAY as a backwater, because it is profitable
That's not what comparative advantage claims at all, at least in the modern conception. Just because a nation excels in one thing doesn't mean that should be the basis of their entire economy; in the previous example, there was obviously more to the American and British economy than grain and textiles, but they were activities that were especially optimal for them as they received Brazilian coffee or Portuguese wine in return. Argentina is the quintessential example of this narrow view of comparative advantage bringing both wealth then poverty, with the rise and fall of their ranching industry. Material, geographic, and demographic conditions domestically and internationally will invariably lead to the decline of sectors that once had high comparative advantage in a country in favor of another.
Ironically, the four Asian Tigers you brought up are perfect examples of the concept; Japan, Korea, and Taiwan all took advantage of US capital in the Cold War seeking anti-communist allies and manufacturing bases with cheap but literate labor, and those nations happened to fill that niche. A huge part of Singapore's economy is dependent on the shipping that passes through the Straight of Malacca, a geographic advantage that they make heavy use of. They are all products of specialization in international trade. If they were isolationist autarkies like Portugal in your example, they wouldn't be what they are today.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>at least in the modern conception
The modern conception of it still insists that Korea should be exporting tungsten and plywood and never, ever invest in any industries, especially not in heavy and chemical, like they did in the 70s, to reap profits to this day. >Just because a nation excels in one thing doesn't mean that should be the basis of their entire economy
Except that's literally the basis of Ricardo's theory: if you are good at making something and can make it relatively cheap, you should focus entirely on that thing, to exploit your advantage.
All this achieves is the Dutch disease instead and total economic collapse once that sector/venue stops being profitable or even suffers a short-term downturn. >2nd part of the post
Literally nothing of that confirms Ricardo's theory.
I get it, it's November, you are freshman on Economy, but at least wait until you get PAST the historical economical theories.
And God have mercy on your soul if your uni is still doing Friedman.
5 months ago
Anonymous
That's because comparative advantage is one of those theories that only work in a stasis. They quite literally don't allow any changes in the pre-existing system and insist on status quo. Take the original wine and cloth example. In reality, Portugal should just build textile mills using wine profits and tell Bongs to frick off, having now advantage in both. But by insisting that this is "mutually profitable" and "best way to do it", Bongs gained cheap wine, while flooding Portuguese market with their cloth.
Want best real examples? Check Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. All four have virtually no resources, yet are export-focused economies. According to Ricardo, this is just not possible.You just can't import resources and export half-finished and finished goods, because that's against your comparative advantage of being poor-ass backwater and/or tiny-ass state. You should instead be a market for outside economies that import finished goods to you and kill your local industry entirely.
That looks like shitposting to me.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Asks anons why they find Ricardo to be bogus >Anons explain in detail >Shitposting much, armarite?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Oh, so you're just moronic, ok.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Oh, so you're just moronic, ok.
That looks like shitposting to me.
5 months ago
Anonymous
That's because comparative advantage is one of those theories that only work in a stasis. They quite literally don't allow any changes in the pre-existing system and insist on status quo. Take the original wine and cloth example. In reality, Portugal should just build textile mills using wine profits and tell Bongs to frick off, having now advantage in both. But by insisting that this is "mutually profitable" and "best way to do it", Bongs gained cheap wine, while flooding Portuguese market with their cloth.
Want best real examples? Check Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. All four have virtually no resources, yet are export-focused economies. According to Ricardo, this is just not possible.You just can't import resources and export half-finished and finished goods, because that's against your comparative advantage of being poor-ass backwater and/or tiny-ass state. You should instead be a market for outside economies that import finished goods to you and kill your local industry entirely.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Also, forgot to mention Vic 2's hilariously slow price fluctuations, which IIRC are hardcoded. At least in 3, you can change the modifiers for price elasticity and limits. You can set the ceiling/floor for prices to 100%, for example, and end up with a far more volatile market. In Vic 2 you're just stuck with a commodity only moving in price by 0.01 pence a DAY, even if demand outstrips supply by an order of magnitude.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Vicky 2 didn't have such limits, while operating under similar mechanics for prices, both internal and external.
It does have base price, min price ratio and max price ratio. Have you played the game?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Nta, but they aren't real. As in - you can get shit below or above the supposed floor and ceiling.
My advice: tag-swap by 1860 and destroy every single liquor distillery there is other than your own. Then watch for next 180 days the prices of liquor and how many times it's going to exceed the supposed maximum price.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Vicky 2 turns entire, frick-huge economic school into gameplay mechanics >Vicky 3 struggles to represent a single economic theory, and one that's been disapproved decades ago >This somehow makes 3 better at modelling economics
You can't be this fricking stupid. You just can't. Not even for (You)s
5 months ago
Anonymous
Sorry, didn't realize the school of "lulz just max out tariffs for the entire game ez noob xD" was a mainstream, accepted one in economics.
5 months ago
Anonymous
the only people who max out tariffs in the game are le commie larpers or subsidies gays or people who have a massive colonial empire.
I agree, but as someone who got into it back before Paradox was a name people cared about it scratches my map autism itch in a way most other games can't. Which is the biggest reason why pre-CK2 Paradox fans put up with the company back then.
Did you really think posting this Rockwell painting would make you more based? If so, Jannies should bar you from posting moron shit on this board again.
Game's religion system is a fricking joke. israelites count as muslims, taiping and mormons are just protestant. Spiritism and other XIX century new religions are not represented at all.
Something which helped me was paying attention to generals and using one with the appropriate skills for offensive/defensive battles. If fighting larger nations only fight defensively too.
Midwits get filtered by the game’s economics. They see making money as a goal in itself rather than as a means to an end which is for pops to produce goods, enough of them being military goods to take other pops through war which produce more goods.
Did gigachad get old?
Kinda.
People just started to mock it right off the bat, since it was clear sign of a bait thread. So a new image got picked. Except it even faster became a filter to know it's just the most moronic shit
cool it with the facebook memes, ESL
Based press
>moids
Frick off roastie.
Low testosterone moron easily triggered
I respect your opinion although I disagree with it, might I recommend you simply don't play Victoria 2 in future?
Sit down moron.
... and thus the image became full contrarianism for (You)s within a month after wide adoption
The original painting's context was that a school burned down and this guy was the only one who objected to building a new one for no real reason other than contrarianism.
Guess it has always been about morons going full moron then
It's just the ultimate American moment:
>I have the right to act moronic, and I'm going to use it, damn it!
And they celebrate this sort of shit as a virtue.
>Only months earlier, Trachte explained, James Edgerton Sr. had lost his entire herd of dairy cattle to a brucellosis outbreak. Government-mandated culling to prevent the spread of the bacteria, found in unpasteurized milk of infected animals, had spared but one heifer on the family farm. No cows meant no milk — and no milk check.
>Jim Edgerton Sr. had been an active supporter of education in Arlington, Trachte and Buddy Edgerton explained. But facing economic disaster, he was concerned about his ability to afford the tax increase that would fund a new school. And so he stood up that night and voiced his concern.
Also once the decision was made to build the school, he worked on its construction and ended up being one of the crew foremen.
He literally did nothing wrong.
>MUH TAXES
We are reaching American levels that shouldn't be even feasible.
>get income fricked by disease
>govt then wants you to give them more money
>you don't have money
>morons on the internet get mad over you not wanting to be poorer 80 years later
Crazy stuff, isn't it.
Euroslaves wouldn't understand.
>euroserf moment
Where the frick are you from, what kind of shit hole full of useless serfs have the act of paying taxes as some kind of virtue? Are you perhaps underage? I guess you just don't work maybe? I'm legitimately curious
>If you aren't Ameritard and don't consider taxes theft, you must be underage and living in a shithole
Ever wondered why your country is so fricked up? Why the education system doesn't work? Why the medical bills are so shit and ruinous? Why the roads are so fricking god-awful, despite entire country being dominated by car traffic? You probably didn't. But that's what you get for keeping few hundred bucks by the end of the year in your pocket - living in a third world country with first world tech... if one can afford it.
And before you start blasting something about freedom, immigrants or whatever: last time I've checked, everyone was trying to take my country by storm, while the only people coming to you are the ones you paid for it.
If you give our government more taxes they'll just use it to frick us over. There's no winning unless we get rid of all our parasitic subhuman politicians. Even with other countries' corruption they manage to not be as corrupt as everyone in the US government.
You are not implying that bad infrastructure is caused by people not paying taxes right? Surely that's not the case. You didn't answer my question. You have to be 18 to post here
europeans will unironically type this while their own infrastructure begins to decay despite the taxes they pay
The next time you see someone say "American education lol" or "do Americans REALLY?" remember that THIS is the kind of person who's typing it
What? Were you expecting Yurogays to NOT conform to their pretentiously snobby stereotypes? Kek!
So let me get this straight
>Image used for WW2 propaganda purposes about the strength of community through liberty
>Actually about some asshat that throw a fit over his personal money being taken to build school for the community
>After all, his 5 cents were more important than the fact there is a school nearby, and he had the right to say that aloud, which he did
>All while the country was getting geared up for war-time effort, where personal liberties meant squat
This image was bad without the backstory, but with it, it's just horrendous.
>>All while the country was getting geared up for war-time effort, where personal liberties meant squat
Your rights don't end during emergencies. I should not step on you just because I think its important
>Your rights don't end during emergencies
Yeah... and then the "war" on terror happened.
>Crucial local infrastructure? Nah, better keep 10 bucks in my wallet
And then you wonder why the country is mostly using shit build in the 70s. Obviously must be the fault of da jus, Black folk and females.
>da jus, Black folk and females.
I mean, all those are objectively awful.
>the "war" on terror happened
i don't understand
you don't like the post-9/11 erosion of liberty, but because it happened, you now retroactively scorn the idea of personal liberty ever having mattered during any historical crisis?
Let me walk you through this in small steps, so you can grasp the very simple concept
>HURR MUH LIBERTY!
>DURR ALWAYS EXPRESS YOURSELF IN THE DUMBEST WAYS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE WE CAN!
>War on Terror, huh?
>I guess I will now voluntarily decrease my actual, personal liberties, all on my own, because the government is fighting imaginary enemy in made-up war
>BUT DON'T YOU DARE TAKING MY FREEDOM!
ah, i see
you conflated the 1940s dairy farmer from the painting with the strawman of a post-9/11 average american you learned from the mass media, then came to /vst/ to assert that this mental frankenstein is to blame for things that /misc/ blames on Black folk, israelites and women
of course, how could i have misunderstood
>of course, how could i have misunderstood
You'll rarely go wrong if you treat anyone speaking in non-sequiturs like that as if they're actually insane and ignore them as much as possible.
>Point
>(You)
Sad
>Implying that 10 bucks wasn't a lot back then
Black person, this wasn't pocket change to the man.
>Examples? What are those?
Must be tough being literal-minded autismo.
(you)
10 bucks in 1940 would be 240 bucks today. Of yearly, rather than monthly or weekly budget you've got. This is peanuts. Always have been. Also, consult
, you dumb fricking Black person.
>Who needs schools, when you can save up less than a weekly minimal pay
>[Freedom intensifies]
No wonder you are a nation of morons that has to pay rest of the world for a brain drain. From tax money, no less.
autistically minded moids are so absolutely worthless when theyre not aeroplane engineers or software developers or whatever
Schools are far from crucial, you can homeschool your kids no problem
>Your rights don't end during emergencies
Oh my, I would recommend you to read more history but there wouldn't be a point because you already forgot the frickery that was covid quarantine.
There's no point in personal liberties if they can be stripped at the drop of a hat, especially when that hat drop is some war going on halfway across the world. The US has doing this bullshit for more than 100 years at this point and it keeps doing it these days because it wants to be the world's babysitter, which also conveniently benefits the politicians making these decisions.
The issue wasn't the tax it was that he wouldn't have been able to afford the tax. He was utterly broke. He asked for a lower taxed amount instead and other ways to fund the school's construction instead including, like this anon
said, community labour which he joined in on.
... yes, and?
How does this deviate from "muh taxes"? Do you even know how taxation works? If you are broke, they can't take from you sum you don't have, you dumb moron. And he wasn't even from a state with poll taxes, so it wouldn't affect him anyway. Him standing out is the epitome of "I'm moronic and have no clue how taxes even work, but I will oppose them on principle, never mind this is for the burned down school". His "concerns" aren't even valid. It's just a dumb frick protesting for the sake of protesting, over issue that doesn't even apply to him.
>If you are broke, they can't take from you sum you don't have, you dumb moron
lol
>why do you care about taxes if you have no money to pay the taxes
He's likely broke because the taxes already siphoned all his money away.
He's broke, because "da goberment" took his cows. Never mind he was moronic enough to get all of them infected (it takes a lot of effort and open neglect to spread brucellosis to an entire herd), the evil goberment culled his herd and now is trying to tax him!
Nta, but the original matter was about rising a sum of 14.5 bucks per citizen.
Which was about the sum on minimal weekly wage back then. So him protesting about a weekly wage being taken away and thus putting him in danger... yeah, no. Especially since ultimately he worked on the construction, precisely to not pay, according to something that was already written in the brochure he is holding on that image.
Guy was simply moronic farmer, plain and simple.
That's 300 bucks today tard. Very few people could just tank a 300 dollar charge easy.
And a weekly minimal federal pay is 290. Your point?
What the other anon said: that's literally the amount of money you get for working for a week as, dunno, burger flipper or the mailman. They literally can't pay you less. Considering the guy's farm was done for, his only fricking prospect was getting other job anyway.
This is the middle of the great depression. While there was no official minimum wage yet, the basic labour wage would be around 50 cents an hour so it would be double the minimum pay at the least. There are no other jobs and it's not like he was asking for it to be 0 just less and he contributed in other ways anyway.
It's 1940, you dumb shit. Depression pretty much ended by '37. And anyone who weathered till '33 had their situation secured.
I get it, it's easier to insist that the guy was "standing up to his rights", but the sad reality is that he was a dumb dairy yokel who had no idea what he's even doing, and another dumb moron found his story inspirational enough to draw it as a propaganda poster.
Moral of the story: don't let WASP urbanites find inspiration in lives of stupid common people.
1940 - $0.30. Even fricking less. And he wasn't the only person who lost his cows anyway and it was an issue enough for their proposal to pass.
>moron can't even do basic math.
40 x 0.3 is 12
Sum is 14.5
Thus: guy has to work for 6 days to pay it off.
Woe him, the poor soul!
Alternatively: the sum is 300 bucks, guy is paid 290 for 5 days of work. He has to work additional 2 hours to get it done. Woe him, the poor soul!
You are both missing the crucial point here:
What happened with the whole American entrepreneurship?
We are supposed to side with some guy, because he can't afford something, but in the same time, we are supposed to stand for his defense of the individual rights and liberties? What the frick? If you can't make it on your own, it's only your own fricking fault. This is the creed on which the whole nation has been build since at least 1820s.
So yeah, it is quite literally his fault that he's poor and his only employable skill was milking his cows. Freedom of speech also means I can freely call out such moronic shit.
Pic related
> Never mind he was moronic enough to get all of them infected (it takes a lot of effort and open neglect to spread brucellosis to an entire herd
I didn’t you were a dairy farmer on top of being underaged and clearly never paying taxes before. That’s crazy.
>they can't take from you sum you don't have
Are you moronic? It would have been a specially levied tax for an immediate need, not regular income taxes and the latter can absolutely take money from you even if you have none. If that wasn't the case people would just spend their money before tax day. "Oops sorry I have nothing to pay taxes with".
The rest is your personal sperging as, once again, he didn't oppose the tax in its entirety but wanted it lessened and other ways of seeking financing for the school (something he supported besides) discussed like community labour. And it absolutely concerned him, that's why we have voting in much of the world as a proxy for discussion on what your taxes go into. That said this whole thing is bait on your end so I'm not sure why I'm replying.
>... yes, and?
>They're called poor people for a reason
>Build local reform support
You are worse than cattle
Imagine wasting freedom of speech on deliberately acting moronic.
Agreed. It's only the tards' nostalgia.
I disagree. It is a good game and probably paradox’s best game ever. I still play it to this day.
i dislike it because once you 'figure it out', every run becomes the same and this is extremely apparent in a game like vicky 2
the fact you can figure it out is also why others like it so much. it's not that victoria 2 is shit, its just that what is wanted in a game differs from person to person
It's not even about getting it figured out being bad by itself. It's that the solution to your problems requires a highly specific pre-set, and if you can't meet the requirements - tough being you, because you won't be able to do anything else.
go back to X, or whatever it's called now, with this meme, holy shit
filtered
I think Imperator (2.0+) is a pretty cool game
It has problems. Victoria 1 is truly great, through.
I probably just suck at it but it feels like one of those idle games where your input is limited. I also know that Paradox's games rely on more or less fixed events, which makes it seem even more like a game that plays itself. Though at the same time I have seen images (probably some from V2 too) of weird countries taking over other countries so you do have a decent amount of control in some way. The concept of the game seems cool though.
You just suck. It's not that the input is limited, it's that it's most effective in very specific ways, and knowing them is a mix of experience, reading wikia and online guides.
I have spent many hours on V2, and many on V3
V3 is easily superior to V2 and I'm tired of pretending it's not
>WHY IS HE ALLOWED TO HAVE HIS OWN OPINION WTF
i see a lot of angry 3rd worlders here
agreed
>shitty randomised politics system
>horrible diplomacy
>infamy system is trash
>filled with railroaded content
system is trash
Imagine being filtered by infamy. In Vicky 2, of all PDX games, too
I honestly think Vic 3 is the better game between the two already. Vic 2 just has a very entrenched fan base.
The difference is that Vicky 3 has a potential to be a better game, while Vicky 2 is in current form the better game. The real question is if 3 will ever realise that potential, and so far, no real hope for that. I get what they are trying with that game, I enjoy most of the ideas, but the execution is just lackluster.
In a perfect world, there is Vicky 2.5, which combines the good elements of both games, and none of their weaknesses, along with filling up the shit both of those games are missing... but we are not living in a perfect world.
>while Vicky 2 is in current form the better game.
Can you tell me what you actually like about Vic 2, because most the game mechanics seem pretty terrible to me. The only thing it offers that 3 doesnt have that i can think of is that you have control over army movement during war.
Like in Vicky 2 as such, or like it better when compared with 3?
Because those are two separate questions.
Since you didn't specify, let's do both then (and ignoring the military)
>Vicky 2 on its own
The game is build on the Keynesian economic theory and if you know what the sliders are doing and how income is spread over all three strats, you can get everything humming at 200% efficiency within a single year. This alone makes Vicky 2 more advanced economic model than majority of economic games.
Spheres are an effective tool to peacefully spread your influence. They aren't perfect, but they get job done.
And this one is going to be controversial, but I like the automated construction by capitalists. Yes, I know they don't match bonuses with local RGOs and pre-existing factories, but they provide meaningful employment and economic growth far better than the RGOs of that state. Including that artillery factory in a state that has population of 1200 people, attracting more due to employment prospects.
>Vicky 2 over 3
It has artisans. This can not be over-stated how much this unfricks the game. Removing them was the dumbest design idea when it comes to 3, and subsistence farmers aren't a real replacement.
Research is better. It doesn't mean it is good, but it is leagues ahead in its practical form and AI is never "left behind" with it due to the mechanics practical side.
Trade is profitable. Like a lot.
It has foreign investments, and so far PDX didn't even allude to the idea that 3 will ever get something like that or similar.
In the long run, the lack of construction pool is a better option than the clusterfrick that ultimately mid-game 3 is. Both systems are flawed, but 2's is just less awful in the long run.
Migration is better, since pops travel freely all the time by hundreds and even thousands, rather than in big migratory events of millions OR a literal handful of pops
That doesn't mean 2 is a flawless game or some sort of golden standard. It has many flaws. But it also does a shitload of crucial stuff better than 3
>It has foreign investments, and so far PDX didn't even allude to the idea that 3 will ever get something like that or similar.
Should be what the Spheres of Influence DLC will be doing no? I agree with the rest especially the lack of migration in Vic 3.
Is it even possible to get decent migration to New World in Vicky 3? Other than the mass migration events, that is. I swear, when I see those big numbers in tune of "32 French Labourers migrated last year" I have no idea what the frick is going on... and then you get a migration event and suddenly entire fricking population of affected state moves in, in the process completely and utterly depopulating their starting area.
I think the crazies thing that ever happened to me was first Trial of Tears removing all the Injuns to Oklahoma, then via mass migration utterly depopulated the place and send everyone to Vest Virginia.
It's supposed to be a journal entry where you click a button to set up a migration target every few years. Problem is that it needs civilising mission which the AI struggles to get anywhere near.
So I guess another kudos to Vicky 2 having it all automated.
It's one of those really weird decisions Wiz was really insisting on, for no real reason other than "because". Same goes with removing foreign investments. It wasn't as much to re-add them as a DLC, but to simply remove them, period.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3028647356
Install this mod and you'll get plenty of migration as a New World country. It should be installed by default a la HPM anyway, since it unfricks so many other parts of the game.
If the game relies on "mods will fix it", it's a shit game by default.
t. playing vanilla 2 and mostly playing OG vanilla, too
I don't even think it is feasible to do foreign investments, unless it offers you the option to use your own construction pool to bankroll it.
Nta, but right now their proposition looks more like "bankroll the country three different ways!" than "build a fricking banana plantation"
>Trade is profitable. Like a lot.
how? I never even paid attention to trade in vic 2 because it was so unintuitive and mostly did its own arcane things in the background. All the confusion over buying order with regard to spheres and prestige, for example. In Vic 3 trade is something I pay more attention to than possibly anything else because you can actually perceive the influence it has on the economy as a result of local prices, and it also has a tangible effect even beyond diplomacy with trade agreements, customs unions, embargos, etc.
>how
By selling excess shit that goes beyond local demand and demand of your sphere for a tidy profit, plus also tariffs directly influencing your budget. It was a triple bubble, really:
- factories stay 100% profitable
- your pops are paid shitload, so consumption sours
- your capitalists get even more dough to expand your 100% profitable business
To put that into perspective: by 1860s, a semi-industrialised country should be making about 2/3 of its budget via tariffs. For comparison, in 3 you would be hard-pressed to fund via tariffs just the governmental jobs of your nation, and that assuming you've hired less than 50k people - all while being the industrial power No. 1 and the factory of the world.
Also
>Can't figure out how to make money on trade in 2
>Insists that trade is important in 3
Trade in 3 exists solely for the Ricardo's comparative advantage logic the game is build upon. It does not generate income, at least not the way it should. Instead, shopkeepers employed by self-created trade hub will pay taxes and consume shit, which will fuel your economy more than trade itself.
Sounds like 3 is just better at modelling economics then. I never cared to learn about trade in 2 because the very first thing I did was set taxes to 100%, then never looked at the budget screen again except to adjust the military supplies slider.
>Sounds like 3 is just better at modelling economics then.
Nice argument, but somehow I think the game that has a singular, global flat price for every good isn't the better economic simulation.
Nta, but this literally applies to all Vickies
>b-but I have different percentage
Yeah, and that percentage is build on the exact same base, and limited to go either 75% up or below that value.
Vicky 2 didn't have such limits, while operating under similar mechanics for prices, both internal and external. Not my fact that you never figured it out without the game gving you a nice, bolded out "-12%" information that you are making enough of something to decrease the price vs. your demand
*my fault
Either way, you come off as an ignorant frickwit that never even bothered to learn bare basics of gameplay, but already know they are bad and worse
>Vicky 2 didn't have such limits, while operating under similar mechanics for prices, both internal and external.
Does it now? So, I can actually leverage comparative advantage (don't know why it's derided by you tards, it's a widely accepted economic phenomenon) and flood the world with cheap grain as the US with my vast tracts of land and mechanized agriculture? Or playing as Britian, can I destroy the nascent textile industries of less developed countries by dumping my cheap, mass-produced clothing on them? Surely that's all possible, right?
>don't know why it's derided by you tards, it's a widely accepted economic phenomenon
Because that "phenomenon" is counter-intuitive to the goals of the game. Did you even played it? By logic of Ricardo, if you start as a backwater, you should STAY as a backwater, because it is profitable. Never build anything new or different, just expand what you start with. Not making furniture and paper, while sitting on prime lumber? Doesn't matter, you didn't start with it, so you should never build any or make your own, it;s better to import.
Which is why nobody takes Ricardo serious since the 1890s, and he completely fall off from anything but historical curiosity by 1940s.
>Surely that's all possible, right?
Yes. The grain one would be tough, given both the bottom low price of grain by default and the fact everyone is overproducing it, but it is doable. And ironically, it would be even harder to pull in 3.
>Because that "phenomenon" is counter-intuitive to the goals of the game. Did you even played it? By logic of Ricardo, if you start as a backwater, you should STAY as a backwater, because it is profitable
That's not what comparative advantage claims at all, at least in the modern conception. Just because a nation excels in one thing doesn't mean that should be the basis of their entire economy; in the previous example, there was obviously more to the American and British economy than grain and textiles, but they were activities that were especially optimal for them as they received Brazilian coffee or Portuguese wine in return. Argentina is the quintessential example of this narrow view of comparative advantage bringing both wealth then poverty, with the rise and fall of their ranching industry. Material, geographic, and demographic conditions domestically and internationally will invariably lead to the decline of sectors that once had high comparative advantage in a country in favor of another.
Ironically, the four Asian Tigers you brought up are perfect examples of the concept; Japan, Korea, and Taiwan all took advantage of US capital in the Cold War seeking anti-communist allies and manufacturing bases with cheap but literate labor, and those nations happened to fill that niche. A huge part of Singapore's economy is dependent on the shipping that passes through the Straight of Malacca, a geographic advantage that they make heavy use of. They are all products of specialization in international trade. If they were isolationist autarkies like Portugal in your example, they wouldn't be what they are today.
>at least in the modern conception
The modern conception of it still insists that Korea should be exporting tungsten and plywood and never, ever invest in any industries, especially not in heavy and chemical, like they did in the 70s, to reap profits to this day.
>Just because a nation excels in one thing doesn't mean that should be the basis of their entire economy
Except that's literally the basis of Ricardo's theory: if you are good at making something and can make it relatively cheap, you should focus entirely on that thing, to exploit your advantage.
All this achieves is the Dutch disease instead and total economic collapse once that sector/venue stops being profitable or even suffers a short-term downturn.
>2nd part of the post
Literally nothing of that confirms Ricardo's theory.
I get it, it's November, you are freshman on Economy, but at least wait until you get PAST the historical economical theories.
And God have mercy on your soul if your uni is still doing Friedman.
That looks like shitposting to me.
>Asks anons why they find Ricardo to be bogus
>Anons explain in detail
>Shitposting much, armarite?
Oh, so you're just moronic, ok.
That looks like shitposting to me.
That's because comparative advantage is one of those theories that only work in a stasis. They quite literally don't allow any changes in the pre-existing system and insist on status quo. Take the original wine and cloth example. In reality, Portugal should just build textile mills using wine profits and tell Bongs to frick off, having now advantage in both. But by insisting that this is "mutually profitable" and "best way to do it", Bongs gained cheap wine, while flooding Portuguese market with their cloth.
Want best real examples? Check Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. All four have virtually no resources, yet are export-focused economies. According to Ricardo, this is just not possible.You just can't import resources and export half-finished and finished goods, because that's against your comparative advantage of being poor-ass backwater and/or tiny-ass state. You should instead be a market for outside economies that import finished goods to you and kill your local industry entirely.
Also, forgot to mention Vic 2's hilariously slow price fluctuations, which IIRC are hardcoded. At least in 3, you can change the modifiers for price elasticity and limits. You can set the ceiling/floor for prices to 100%, for example, and end up with a far more volatile market. In Vic 2 you're just stuck with a commodity only moving in price by 0.01 pence a DAY, even if demand outstrips supply by an order of magnitude.
>Vicky 2 didn't have such limits, while operating under similar mechanics for prices, both internal and external.
It does have base price, min price ratio and max price ratio. Have you played the game?
Nta, but they aren't real. As in - you can get shit below or above the supposed floor and ceiling.
My advice: tag-swap by 1860 and destroy every single liquor distillery there is other than your own. Then watch for next 180 days the prices of liquor and how many times it's going to exceed the supposed maximum price.
>Vicky 2 turns entire, frick-huge economic school into gameplay mechanics
>Vicky 3 struggles to represent a single economic theory, and one that's been disapproved decades ago
>This somehow makes 3 better at modelling economics
You can't be this fricking stupid. You just can't. Not even for (You)s
Sorry, didn't realize the school of "lulz just max out tariffs for the entire game ez noob xD" was a mainstream, accepted one in economics.
the only people who max out tariffs in the game are le commie larpers or subsidies gays or people who have a massive colonial empire.
2/10, I couldn't be even arsed to find a better image source
I agree, but as someone who got into it back before Paradox was a name people cared about it scratches my map autism itch in a way most other games can't. Which is the biggest reason why pre-CK2 Paradox fans put up with the company back then.
Did you really think posting this Rockwell painting would make you more based? If so, Jannies should bar you from posting moron shit on this board again.
Game's religion system is a fricking joke. israelites count as muslims, taiping and mormons are just protestant. Spiritism and other XIX century new religions are not represented at all.
>taiping are just protestant
I fail to see a problem with this
>XIX century
Hello Slav!
after reading this thread and OPs justifications for his position i have come to the conclusion that OP is moronic.
contrarian homosexual
my only issue with Victoria 2 is that I'm a bit shit at micromanaging armies so I usually end up losing all wars except against pathetic countries
Something which helped me was paying attention to generals and using one with the appropriate skills for offensive/defensive battles. If fighting larger nations only fight defensively too.
Watching Spudgun taught me how to micro and rotate armies.
Yeah, still better than the liquid diarrhea is vic3
Midwits get filtered by the game’s economics. They see making money as a goal in itself rather than as a means to an end which is for pops to produce goods, enough of them being military goods to take other pops through war which produce more goods.