An intellectual's review

[Unimatrix11]

Yeah, i indeed think that a sim, if it works in a realistic environment, has a much harder living in sense of counting as realistic. If i choose to add things into the model, they need to reflect reality and be consistant with it. Whereas if i choose an unreal setting, then the model only has to consistent with itself. In that sense the perspective changes a whole lot, if it is stated that the world of civ is a different one then this one. But then the quotes are out of place. (in fact civ reminds us of its own inconsistancy with reality with the very quote of banking - it basically says: "hey - dude - this is a game ! In the real world banks are not only beneficial. We thought we own that much to truth to remind you of this.")

I´d like to ask you this: What are those coins on the left upper hand of the screen refer to in RL? Is it the same in the beginning of the game as it is at its end ? Cause if its not, then the model is not consistent. And if banks are implemented in the model the way they are, then, i dont see how it could be the same... But if it is not this world we are talking about and banks work differently in the civ-world - then fine... but what could be learned from that ? Civ suggests to be taking place in this world (a world that works like ours) and by that, if it doesnt, its rather decepting than teaching realities (the bank-quote above i interpretate as to make this very accusation invalid - it screams : "This is not a sim !") - at least, as seems to be apparent in this thread, to the "common" player who tends to take things a little more literal.

Do i need to say, that i regard civ´s educational value (which is high, IMHO) to reside chiefly with the quotes and civilopedia-texts ?

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11


It is of course true, that banks improved commerce, but not national (net) income.

Not true. Aggregate wealth of the national increases as a result of money flowing more freely within the economy and also from the redirection of wealth to more efficient sources of production. The net effect is that investment is directed to sources that grow by more than the investment thus generating more income than that needed to pay the loan.

The whole question of whether people were better off from industrialisation of not misses one significant point. There might have been a lot more miserable people in industrial Britain but there were one hell of a lot more of them than there were before the agricultural revolution that preceded it. In fact, even the poor were significantly better off than the poor of two centuries before. What Marx is pointing out is merely that people judge poverty not in absolute terms but in relative terms so that they see themselves as poor because there were quite a large number of big winners from industrialisation.

You take this to the modern day and by most measures of poverty in this country, I qualify as being poor because I do not own a Playstation!!

That the pauper could identify riches that they were no longer part of is not a valid criticism of the banking model. Those riches were just not there before.

Your model of the world and the banking system is too simplistic to serve as a valid criticism of the Civ model. The wealth of nations has to be measured at an aggregate level not based on the absolute income of the poorest members of society. You also seem to demonise the likes of Rhodes and Rockefeller for undisclosed crimes to support your Marxist views - which, not incedently, were responsible for some of the biggest economic failures of the 20th Century.

I should also note your simplification of the cause and effect of immigration into the US. It was a shortage of labour that pushed up wage costs thus leading to a general increase in the standard of living of US workers and a greater demand for labour from abroad. With higher relative standards of living, people were attracted to move there. If anyone was PAID to emigrate, it was a very small minority - you would not have to pay them.

Anyway, enough of the capitalist propaganda, I also disagree with all five of your points as to why the simulation in Civ is "neglectable"

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
Do i need to say, that i regard civ´s educational value (which is high, IMHO) to reside chiefly with the quotes and civilopedia-texts ?

I believe the educational value is MUCH more than that.
-A player can learn the general flow of technological development.
-How different military weapons were especially powerful against other units (spears vs. horse)
-What UUs were associated with what culture
-Something about the Wonders of the game (yes, this is pretty much civilopedia, I'd agree with you on that)
-Some of the rulers of different nations over time

I could go on, but I wouldn't short change it. As a related example, from playing Third Reich a lonnnnng time ago, I knew all the countries of Europe hands down for those geography classes. OOPS! Not all; the map didnt include everyone. But hey, I was head-and-shoulders above the rest of the 11 year olds.

[Unimatrix11]

So nations run surpluses now ? Which one ? They dont devote about 20% to interest-payments only in many cases ? And the income that was generated was not in private hands ?

I would be careful about the "biggest economic failures of the 20th century" as well, as there were times in the US, were it was exactly the central bank, causing a major crises, that soon got global proportions, that resulted in a stagering loss of jobs and continous concentration of capital at the same time. It is true that money is more competetive when it is concentrated in a few hands, but is it more beneficial (or pareto-optimal)? What is (or rather should be) the goal of an economic system ? What is the purpose of a nation, when concentration of funds is handed over to private investors, whose interest is not common wellfare, but individual profit ?

It is, btw, very hard to imagine a greater poverty than that of the common factory worker (man, woman or child) in the beginning stages of industrialism. Did you read Marx ?

These days, capitalism is working almost world-wide - so the measure in which capitalim produces poverty can not be measured within a single country. Yeah, here in Europe we are still pretty well off right now. We are, because we are (forced to) participating in the impovering of other people - or when did you get your payment in cash the last time ?

"the wealth simply wasnt there" - right - who produced it ? Millions and millions of dependant workers, that had hardly enough to feed themselves and lived in sh**-holes, working 12,14, 16 hours a day, while the profit THEY produced was used to subdue more people(s) into their state of living.

Money can be used in different ways to make people do something - there is direct payment, but there is also, well, lets call it advertising (or spreading lies ? - raise false hopes ?).

I object to the definition of the wealth of a nation to be the aggregate of all incomes. A nation is wealthy, when at least the overwhelming majority of it is well off - not if a few hold tremendous capital and the majority has close to nothing. say a nation has 100 people and 100 money (even worse: 100 money p.a. - which is closer to reality). A nation that has 1 money per person is in my eyes wealthier than a nation that has 90 people have 0.1 money each and 10 persons 9.1 money each - then those 10 people are wealthy - while the nation is poor. In the former example, the nation would be averagely wealthy. But you are right: in capitalism its measured rather vice versa. Cause there the potential to make profits is the indicator for wealth (namely via the credit-system) - and that is undoubtelly higher in nation #2. So thats why a nation´s wealth stands in direct correlation with the poverty of its people (the majority thereof).

EDIT: Math mistake (thats why i fluked that damned test mentioned above)

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by Petrus2


I believe the educational value is MUCH more than that.
-A player can learn the general flow of technological development.
-How different military weapons were especially powerful against other units (spears vs. horse)
-What UUs were associated with what culture
-Something about the Wonders of the game (yes, this is pretty much civilopedia, I'd agree with you on that)
-Some of the rulers of different nations over time

I could go on, but I wouldn't short change it. As a related example, from playing Third Reich a lonnnnng time ago, I knew all the countries of Europe hands down for those geography classes. OOPS! Not all; the map didnt include everyone. But hey, I was head-and-shoulders above the rest of the 11 year olds.

I give you most of those points - thats why i said "chiefly". Hardly any of this is related to it modeling economics though. And i already gave my opinion about the tech-tree. For example: Someone who´d "educate" himself with civ, must conclude, that only in egypt that could have been an ancient republic, for they built the pyramids. Now thats rather an example of deception (or rather confusion) than education... The wonder´s effect´s are funny at times anyway - so the oracle grants extra technological knowledge ? So when a conqueror-to-be went to Delphi and asked for an omen for the upcoming battle, it told him how to make better swords? UH ? (yeahyeah to literal - but how abstract that down ?). The wonders are really at odds with reality most of the time. The advantage of the cremlin is only usable in... a democracy... ahh that was the mistake of the soviets (tho the cremlin is in fact a lot older than communism, but well, civ....(i bet it also says so in the civilopedia, tho)) - there you go, couerdelion.

German tanks were not substantially better than french ones in WWII, only better commanded, but that would be one of the literalities that adam would pick on - fact is, the common player translates it to better tanks, not better military doctrine. Perception counts.

So in fact and summary, i DONT give you most of the points - what i do give you is the military units thing (tho there are exceptions to that, too, namely when it was needed for game-play reasons to re-balance them) and the rest is basically the civpedia again - which actually makes up for a lot of BS (or over-abstraction) in the model in terms of the games´ educational value.

[Velociryx]

I'm enjoying this thread more and more, especially the conversations re: alternate methods of modelling the economy in a game structure.

The model I'm inching toward is quite similar to what Blake proposed, a la, "it takes x% of the populace of a given region to feed itself."

To arrive at what the value of X is, I've taken into account such things as soil quality/suitability of the land for farming, and the overall "tech level" of the populace in terms of farming techniques (this is expressed in terms of #/grains harvested per stalk, and multiplied up from there (i.e., at game start, on average farmland, your yield might be 4 grains. That is to say, you plant one grain, you tend that crop, you get back 4x what you planted....factoring in that you must set aside some portion of your crop for replanting, you wind up with a net gain of 3:1 (plant 1 grain, get 4, set one aside, and you net yourself 3).

From there, with a bit of number crunching, you can arrive at the number of grains needed to feed the population of the region (with any excess being a tradeable commodity). For kicks, you can vary the total caloric intake of you populace (and allow this to be a game moddable variable that the player controls), so that you can put your citizens on a subsistence diet (say 1100 calories a day), or you can fatten the proverbial calf (say 2500 calories per day). This, you could use to allow the happiness/loyalty/whatever you wanna call it of that region to float between some set of paramaters, and/or add health benefits/maluses, depending on what level you set that value at.

This opens up a number of interesting doors, as you can now vary the land quality (starting tech, poor land might only net you 2 grains for every 1 planted, which would see you essentially breaking even--can't farm here effectively until you learn some better farming techniques), while exquisitely fertile land might net you 6 grains per 1 planted.

Likewise, as your populace "gets better at" the notion of farming, your grain yield would slowly increase (eventually making it possible to grow crops sustainably, and even profitably in what was considered impossible conditions, previously (the earlier example of poor soil and starting tech level...eventually, you may get to a sufficient "tech level" where even the poor soil yields 4-5 grains per 1 planted).

In turn, this dictates what percentage of the population must devote itself to food production.

NOTES:
*This model is conceptual only at this point...the working economic model I've got at present is almost completely abstracted, but these are the directions I'm wanting to head off in.

**For the time being, the model takes only grains into account as a food source. The natural extension of this is to create a "balanced diet" mechanism, including at the very least beef (cattle/goat/whatever), dairy, and fish, but the central question here is: "does adding that level of detail to the model enhance gameplay?" If the answer is no, then the model is best left in a fairly abstracted state, though I could see essentially copying the same model to other food types (i.e., use the same basic model for herds of beasts--also a food source--would have some advantages over grains, in that you could use as grazeland, land that might be poor farmland, and fish (coastal/lake/ocean areas)...would add some nice variance, even if the core model that underpinned it was 100% identical.

$0.02

-=Vel=-

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11


I give you most of those points - thats why i said "chiefly".
...
So in fact and summary, i DONT give you most of the points -

Will the real Unimatrix please stand up?

Notice my points did NOT talk about the results of the techs, but the FLOW of technology. Yes, militarily that's an exception, but my point holds. Panzers were German. Legions were Roman. And spears kick horse-butt if used properly. etc.

Walk into most high school, even college classrooms and ask them about triremes, caravels, frigates. You'll be lucky if anyone can give any intelligent comment on them. Play Civ and you won't be an expert, but you'll be able to conduct an intelligent 5 minute conversation.

The reason I don't think the civilopedia is the chief source of info is that a person has to read it! More casual players are less likely too, thus that learning tool is gone. For more experienced/dedicated players, the 'pedia could possibly be claimed to be the chief source of info.

[Unimatrix11]

I see your point now. Perception counts ... Yeah, i must say i liked it more in civI, where, if i remember correctly, the pedia-text for a tech that you researched was pushed on you more - it appeared automatically. Of course you could just hit enter or the mousebutton to get away with it, but still one was more inclined to read it. I must admit i never read the civIV-pedia really.

[Adam Weishaupt]

The problem with this analysis (re: the coin question) and the constant chains to history is that economics is not history. Again I say this, because it seems to be a sticky point here -- economics is not history. If you demonstrate that Civ deviates from history, then you demonstrate that Civ is flawed as a historical simulator. If you demonstrate that Civ deviates from history, you offer nothing relevant to an assessment of Civ's economic model.

That said, again I also plead for avoidance of literalism. "Coins" do not necessarily represent physical coins, and this should be self-evident from the fact that a treasury exists before currency is developed and cannot be pushed into the negative range even in modernity when national debts become sustainable. Given these actual features of the model, it stands to reason that the "coins" are an abstract measure of the strength of a civilization's financial sector.

In primitive times, this amounts to loot taken from rival tribes and trinkets accumulated as offerings from ordinary folks to social elites. In post-industrial times it may represent the financial clout of capital markets and federal institutions. The graphics engine designates those numbers as "coins." However, the economic model defines them as the capacity to maintain civic institutions, bankroll military buildups, provide financial support to other nations, et al.

It is baseless negativity to be critical of interpretations that do not acknowledge the workings of the model. The way the model works, it may well be that the "coins" initially represent stone age trinkets, then later hordes of precious metals, and eventually become separated from material objects altogether. This simulates how the purchasing power of governments itself has changed over time. Anchoring them to only trinkets or only coins or only bond issues is ignoring how the model actually works.

Criticism that follows from that view is not a criticism of the game's economic model at all. It is instead the imposition of pointless arbitrary restraints that are not at all incorporated into the actual model. In short, it is concluding the thing is bad without bothering to get in touch with what the thing actually is. How does that constitute sound analysis?

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

[Unimatrix11]

A sufficient answer would have been: "The coins represent the abstract measure of a civilization´s financial sector; its capacity to maintain civic institutions, bankroll military buildups, provide financial support to other nations, et al."(, provided for by different means in different times). Now that is a good answer - my thesis does not stand as such then. Thanks for that part of the analysis.

[Adam Weishaupt]

I do apologize if my tone was unduly defensive. In light of less thoughtful participants' involvement in this thread, I suppose I expect the worst even though in your case that was not a reasonable expectation.

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

[couerdelion]

So nations run surpluses now ? Which one ? They dont devote about 20% to interest-payments only in many cases ? And the income that was generated was not in private hands ?

You borrow money to invest in the expectation that you get more than enough back to cover the interests. What you might be talking about are poor investments but quoting 20% interest is avoiding what that money was actually spent on. Take a simple example of wanting to build a road-network, a nation has two simple options: either build the road from current taxes or borrow the money to build now and use the taxes to repay the borrowings. The expectation is that the economic gains from the road network will raise national income at a greater rate than the rate of interest so we get more tax in future to cover the interest and repayments. Sound investment not some capital thief stealing from the honest working man.

I would be careful about the "biggest economic failures of the 20th century" as well, as there were times in the US, were it was exactly the central bank, causing a major crises, that soon got global proportions

Cause and effect probably all wrong here. At worst, a central bank might be guilty of “allowing” a bubble-economy to expand too much so that the pain experienced when the bubble bursts is greater. But upsets in the US economy in the 20th century were nothing compared to the adject failure of socialism in general and communism in particular.

It is, btw, very hard to imagine a greater poverty than that of the common factory worker (man, woman or child) in the beginning stages of industrialism. Did you read Marx ?

Part of the problem here is simply adapting to the change and the mass migration from country to city. These are the sort of problems that you can see quite well in the newly-industrialising country. But if you want to imagine worse then try thinking about all those people who are migrating to this great poverty and why there is so much demand that the population expands so rapidly to support the needs of this newly industrialising country.

These days, capitalism is working almost world-wide - so the measure in which capitalim produces poverty can not be measured within a single country. Yeah, here in Europe we are still pretty well off right now. We are, because we are (forced to) participating in the impovering of other people - or when did you get your payment in cash the last time ?

You’re looking at international trade as a zero-sum game in which one country gains only at the expense of another. In fact, international trade works because both sides win. To take a very simple example, a coffee grower will not sell coffee if they cannot get a good enough price.

"the wealth simply wasnt there" - right - who produced it ? Millions and millions of dependant workers, that had hardly enough to feed themselves and lived in sh**-holes, working 12,14, 16 hours a day, while the profit THEY produced was used to subdue more people(s) into their state of living.

So why were these people choosing this way of life again? Are you saying that most workers were forced to work in one particular factory? I wonder why they didn’t emigrate if conditions were so bad.

To take an example of how wealth is created simply look at the computer you are using now. It is made up of physical components that represent a small proportion of the value of the completed product. What has been added is the physical work of those involved in the production and movement of materials, a reasonably large element of capital investment (money) and a fair amount of expertise and entreprenuerial capital. They all need to be paid for what they provide to help produce the final product which is worth more combined that the original inputs - hence wealth is created that did not exist before

I object to the definition of the wealth of a nation to be the aggregate of all incomes. A nation is wealthy, when at least the overwhelming majority of it is well off - not if a few hold tremendous capital and the majority has close to nothing. say a nation has 100 people and 100 money (even worse: 100 money p.a. - which is closer to reality). A nation that has 1 money per person is in my eyes wealthier than a nation that has 90 people have 0.1 money each and 10 persons 9.1 money each - then those 10 people are wealthy - while the nation is poor. In the former example, the nation would be averagely wealthy. But you are right: in capitalism its measured rather vice versa. Cause there the potential to make profits is the indicator for wealth (namely via the credit-system) - and that is undoubtelly higher in nation #2. So thats why a nation´s wealth stands in direct correlation with the poverty of its people (the majority thereof).

Your measure is arbitrary and not at all objective. The nation still has the same amount of money even if one has an uneven distribution. Try another one where 100 people each have 1 gold and over the course of the year, 20 of them turn their 1 gold into 5 gold while the rest lose half of their gold. (20*5)+(80*0.5) = 140 gold. Now are you say that the best thing to do now is to take 3.6 from each of the first group and give 0.9 to the second so they are all even again (at 1.4 each). Try it out and see watch which group of people leave.

[Unimatrix11]

Ahhh - so now, after i gave you the point, it is a sound analysis, uh ? (just playing with you - no offence - not even a need to reply)

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by couerdelion

You borrow money to invest in the expectation that you get more than enough back to cover the interests. What you might be talking about are poor investments but quoting 20% interest is avoiding what that money was actually spent on. Take a simple example of wanting to build a road-network, a nation has two simple options: either build the road from current taxes or borrow the money to build now and use the taxes to repay the borrowings. The expectation is that the economic gains from the road network will raise national income at a greater rate than the rate of interest so we get more tax in future to cover the interest and repayments. Sound investment not some capital thief stealing from the honest working man.

So now a nation builds a hospital for example in the prospect of it running profits ? Does it occur to you, that at least sometimes, welfare is not profitable ? Old people tent to be a bad investment... i´ll stop here as not to get personal... - may it suffice that a nation that spends money on their welfare is not one i consider "unsound".

Cause and effect probably all wrong here. At worst, a central bank might be guilty of “allowing” a bubble-economy to expand too much so that the pain experienced when the bubble bursts is greater. But upsets in the US economy in the 20th century were nothing compared to the adject failure of socialism in general and communism in particular.

It didnt allow for it - it made it too a good part - Purpose: capital concentration. Now the economic failure of socialism. I already said that capital is more potent when concentrated. So socialism has a lower degree of potencial inherently. But to call that a failure, merely based on the fact that it couldnt keep up with unleashed consumerism when it had its mainland utterly destroyed once during this period and a gruesome leader at the same time is quite daring. And it would be argueable, how much of approval these states would have been given by Marx in the first place.

Part of the problem here is simply adapting to the change and the mass migration from country to city. These are the sort of problems that you can see quite well in the newly-industrialising country. But if you want to imagine worse then try thinking about all those people who are migrating to this great poverty and why there is so much demand that the population expands so rapidly to support the needs of this newly industrialising country.

Dont talk about cause and effect reversed, man! Cause you just did it. Read Marx, especially the chapters about the initial accumulation.

You’re looking at international trade as a zero-sum game in which one country gains only at the expense of another. In fact, international trade works because both sides win. To take a very simple example, a coffee grower will not sell coffee if they cannot get a good enough price.

You are spitting in the face of millions with this. So you really think if one is left with only one alternative, that that alternative must be just and profitable ? Usually people do not meet as equals on the market.

So why were these people choosing this way of life again? Are you saying that most workers were forced to work in one particular factory? I wonder why they didn’t emigrate if conditions were so bad.

Simple: Because they had nowhere else to go. Whats with the "one particular factory" ? Of course they forced upon each other all the same inhumane work-conditions by the sacred cow called competition. Again Marx will answer that question of yours more than sufficiently.

To take an example of how wealth is created simply look at the computer you are using now. It is made up of physical components that represent a small proportion of the value of the completed product. What has been added is the physical work of those involved in the production and movement of materials, a reasonably large element of capital investment (money) and a fair amount of expertise and entreprenuerial capital. They all need to be paid for what they provide to help produce the final product which is worth more combined that the original inputs - hence wealth is created that did not exist before

Partly correct here: Indeed wealth is no more than materialized work. With every step of refinement of a product it absorbs more work thus value is added to it. Now vocab gets hard for me... hmmm. Well i did say that the workers generated all the wealth. Now to that "reasonably large element of capital" that the saleries of the worker represented. This part of the capital is called the variable capital and its ratio to the constant capital (factories and the likes) drops as accumulation of capital and refinement of machinery continue. The worker more and more becomes just an adjunct to its machinery, as opposed to vice versa. The machine uses him not he uses the machine - he is the instrument and it is the master telling him when to do what how fast again and again and again... (okay i got side tracked) At the same time more and more worker are "set free" - meaning they are avaiable for that kind of work, which just means that he got even more dependant.

Your measure is arbitrary and not at all objective. The nation still has the same amount of money even if one has an uneven distribution. Try another one where 100 people each have 1 gold and over the course of the year, 20 of them turn their 1 gold into 5 gold while the rest lose half of their gold. (20*5)+(80*0.5) = 140 gold. Now are you say that the best thing to do now is to take 3.6 from each of the first group and give 0.9 to the second so they are all even again (at 1.4 each). Try it out and see watch which group of people leave.

It is easy to say who produced those 40 here. Those forty should have been evenly distributed in the first place, under the premise, that the other 20 work, too !

[Petrus2]

Good lord. Is it being claimed that socialism is an efficient form of government/economic control? (if not forgive me, but that's what I think I'm reading!) Considering all the real world failures of socialism/communism/etc? Step away from the books and let's view the real world.

People suck (and the follow-on fact I try to impress upon my daughter, "Men are pigs"). If humans weren't naturally self-centered, self-serving, greedy, et al, then socialism might work. Then toss in the fact that some are just smarter and/or harder working. If the social-economic system fails to reward those who produce more with higher income, the system becomes increasingly less efficient. And then falls victim to the country with a more efficient system, either through open warfare or other means.

Is capitalism flawless? Nah. But with appropriate oversight and controls, it certainly beats the bejeezus out of anything else.

God save me from ivory tower intellectuals!