Degree in economic Thousand hours in vic 2 I think money supply issue is more nuanced. As the game progresses money supply naturally shrinks because tax efficiency rises meaning more and more money is taken from the pops and being stored in each countries treasuries. Heck the natural instinct of the player is to horde as much money as possible because line going up is good, while economic indicators are absent or obstruse. This should naturally have a negative effect on aggregate demand of the pops. More and more tax means less and less is in the economy that the pops can spend and earn as income. The new treasury system they put in I think was meant to address this money sink problem.
@@GameGabster ive tested this, you can avoid the money supply issue by not hoarding as the player, turns out the player has a fuck ton of power due to how much smarter we are than the ai, that means the player can often times spare just enough money until 1936, there is another issue with vic2 the game is heavily malthusian especially for some resources like rubber meanwhile demand keeps increasing and people cant ever get content(the problem is that this is depicted as increasing militancy, and thus a very big pain). Speaking of which one thing I like about vic2 is how sudden changes in policy can have observable changes in the global economy and such, for ecample if you suddenly hike taxes, you may heavily damage foreign industries that are export oriented, and at least in the short term cause prices to go down and cause a depression. As a rule of thumb I never research tax techs, I am not kidding i only research it late game and I maintain myself through a mix of tarriffs and more efficiency techs(it actually works to give you a reasonable budget once you get up and running) I presume that specific part really helps maintain the money supply
@@Cecilia-ky3uw yeah it doesnt help that rgo really only improve with tech and railroads Otherwise the supply of rubber or iron is fixed and you go into these maasive shortgage periods Again something theyve resolved in the New one that should hopefully improve the economy
I played a GFM game the other week as portugal where I essentially could not get myself in the red even with -100% tariffs and 0 tax. It was really frustrating.
Speaking of this i really hope they do bring foriegn investment into the game We should be able to put money into latin america to boost the supply of rubber and fruit and such. And it be just fun to bannana republic them
Overall victoria 2 economy better in terms of realism and in terms of gameplay, cause in Vic 3 you can just up your country for several decades just building factories which already profitable at market. In victoria 2 a lot of needs to do stable industry: illiterate people, workers, industry itself and spheres and amount of people.
You also have the diplomatic option in Vic3 to force a nation to open its market. This way it ties into international relations and can lead to wars for market resources.
Yo, look up Prestige in the Vic2 wiki, Prestige was supposed to affect the market, but it doesn't, the only thing that matters is the overall ranking, so the #1 superpower gets all the goods, #2 gets scraps, #3 might be lucky if they can use any factories at all, and so on.
The fact that spawning new money into your Treasury with console commands creates cantillion effects and a business cycle just proves that Victoria 2 has the better economic simulation.
11:54 AFAIK in Vic2 there's a bug that makes some money disappear and PDX couldn't locate when and why in time, so there's code that periodically creates new money out of thin air. The amount that disappeared got smaller with every patch, but it's a problem that is still present on newest patch.
Well considering Anarcho capitalists aren't in the game and actual anarcho-socalists, actual left wing anarchists are ingame its already more realistic.
anarcho capitalism was from the XIX century, years before anarcho-colectivism, so is accurate that vic2 include them. In that age ancap was called radical liberalism, so its indeed, historical accurate.
I think world market access based on prestige in vic2 is more realistic than Vic3. For example, If you have nowadays a client in USA who wants to buy your resources at the same price than another client in Somalia, who do you choose first? Who do you think will be more stable and profitable client for you? You prioritize based on prestige in real life.
I have a question: The British Empire relied on mercantilism for its global economic dominance. And as well as being the birthplace of the industrial revolution, how did the likes of a later unified Germany surpass the UK's national economy? Was it down to policy, population, resources, or all of these? Please explain.
There are a lot of interesting questions here each worth an essay on their own. However, I would like to challenge the idea that The British Empire relied on mercantilism for its global dominance. Mercantilism, in the sense of aiming to have a net export balance in order to hoard bullion in the belief that it increased wealth, was a popular way of thinking. Yes, much of early British and indeed European colonialism was built around a mercantilistic economic policy, but as the 18th century waned, so did mercantilism. Industrialisation in Britain and its peak colonial hegemony coincides with a freer approach to the trade balance. That is not to say that this initial position which allowed for the UK to industrialise was not built on mercantilism, but I would be wary to equate the two. Other colonial empires which famously continued on an extractivist approach collapsed (see Spain). The UK also famously lost the Thirteen colonies precisely because of their highly restrictive mercantilistic approach in the Americas. That said this is a complicated topic where there is a lot of literature and of which I am not an expert. As for Germany surpassing the British Economy it is again something which there is a lot of research around. There is no way I could fit it all here, but for the sake of brevity I would say that it was a combination of all the factors you listed. Pinpointing a specific cause in a complex process is a futile endeavour. Economies also benefit greatly from the "catch-up effect", assuming that they have stable policies in place that allow for long term development. I hope that answers some of your thoughts. Again, I would suggest turning to some more academic literature for better answers as this is just uncited take on it.
1 population Sure if you include the raj British empire wins But the raj was incredibly under developed, that on an educated person basis Germany stacked up well. 2 geography It also sits on the Rhine a major economic hub of Europe. 3 complacency England failed to take advantage of its lead in chemistry. The tech to make dyes and pharmacuaticals from coal ash was developed in England but took off in germany. Giving rise to the German chemical industry a big player even to this day (think bayer)
@@GameGabster Access to the world market is regulated by each nation's overall rank[3], therefore the nation with the highest rank buys first, then the second highest and so on. If an item is in high demand, it is possible that nations with lower rankings will not have anything left to buy when their turn comes (this is common early on in the game with clipper convoys, for example, making it hard for an unciv to build or supply a navy). This also means that countries that have a higher rank will sell their goods first. (Victoria 2 Wiki)
@@JD-jl4yy IRL: In the victorian era paper money was endogeneous to the supply of gold (the precious metal, given the international gold standard), so as to have 1:1 metal backing for every unit of cash in the economy. Effectively only countries with gold mines could mint currency. But nowadays it's different. The gold standard had been in shambles since the aftermath of WW1, but it wasn't until 1971 that it was finally abandoned during the Nixon shock. Since then cash gets injected/ejected from the economy by government monetary institutions in response to variations in reserves but also can vary without an observance for backing. It has been labelled "fiat" money, meaning "faith" money since its value stems not from actual backing but from the faith citizens deposit on their governments
What do you make of the fact that economic migration across far away countries was removed? Economically I think it is very misleading - just look at countries like Argentina or of course the US in this period
I hope that it is modelled somewhat well by the machenics that have been implemented, but I agree that it is misleading. It makes it seem as though people only move across continents if there is a catastrophe.
Unfortunately, Victoria 2 economy is ridiculously broken. The idea for this game was great, but they most likely were unable to make it work, so it's only an illusion. What I mean is on the production tab is a complete mess. We have numbers that make no sense. Hover the pointer over the products. I'll give a random example. For tobacco. farmers produce 763, sold (domestic) = 602.022, sold (export) = 219.28. How does there numbers make sense?. Click on it and other huge surprises: Total produced = 763.09, Total used = 270.567. These numbers make no sense, the mess is huge with every single product. For wool production about 2000, sold domestically 0 although demand is great, clicking on it the pop consumes more than is produced internally. So where do they get it from? I noticed this when due to synthetic dye factories, nobody was working on dye plantations. I closed first all the dye factories, some farmers returned to work, but although there was a huge demand, they didn't bothered to work. That is in Bengals regions where there are 4 provinces that have over 1 mil population each, some have 2 mil or more. I made a test and bought max stockpile of dye and some returned to work for a day or town till the stockpile got full, then left again. With the dye factories closed, then demolished as a test, tariffs at max the fabric factories still work the get dye from heaven, the plantations produce some, but 0 sold internally. Makes not sense at all.
@GameGabster Why when you open the menu windows do you see the map in background? When I open these I get a background image hiding the map. Is this a setting or mod?
Well he did not say he even talked to an economist and being in sociology I would think he knows a few!!! Well but talking about the social aspects might get him even more views because I think we all know he will likely have way more knowledge about it being his field of study.
You are not wrong, though I did focus my studies on economic sociolgy. Edit: I might do some videos later on with a more "sociological" approach when the game comes out.
I generally dislike sociologists who didnt get an economy degree talking about the economy as it leads to two sets of so called experts on the economy, would honestly be better if they get an economics professor in every sociology class relating to economy
I had classes by world class economists in economics. When I say I studied economics it wasn't just economic sociolgy. It was also classical and historical economics at graduate level.
Will the Victoria 3 economic system be more realistic? Find a partner and discuss.
A. Yes it will be more realistic the world market is a very exploitable safety net
B. What mod where you using on your Vicky 2?
@@dragosdragon7515 hfm/gfm
@@dragosdragon7515 maybe hpm
@@dragosdragon7515 GFM
Degree in economic
Thousand hours in vic 2
I think money supply issue is more nuanced. As the game progresses money supply naturally shrinks because tax efficiency rises meaning more and more money is taken from the pops and being stored in each countries treasuries.
Heck the natural instinct of the player is to horde as much money as possible because line going up is good, while economic indicators are absent or obstruse.
This should naturally have a negative effect on aggregate demand of the pops.
More and more tax means less and less is in the economy that the pops can spend and earn as income.
The new treasury system they put in I think was meant to address this money sink problem.
I can only second that.
@@GameGabster ive tested this, you can avoid the money supply issue by not hoarding as the player, turns out the player has a fuck ton of power due to how much smarter we are than the ai, that means the player can often times spare just enough money until 1936, there is another issue with vic2 the game is heavily malthusian especially for some resources like rubber meanwhile demand keeps increasing and people cant ever get content(the problem is that this is depicted as increasing militancy, and thus a very big pain). Speaking of which one thing I like about vic2 is how sudden changes in policy can have observable changes in the global economy and such, for ecample if you suddenly hike taxes, you may heavily damage foreign industries that are export oriented, and at least in the short term cause prices to go down and cause a depression. As a rule of thumb I never research tax techs, I am not kidding i only research it late game and I maintain myself through a mix of tarriffs and more efficiency techs(it actually works to give you a reasonable budget once you get up and running) I presume that specific part really helps maintain the money supply
@@Cecilia-ky3uw yeah it doesnt help that rgo really only improve with tech and railroads
Otherwise the supply of rubber or iron is fixed and you go into these maasive shortgage periods
Again something theyve resolved in the New one that should hopefully improve the economy
I played a GFM game the other week as portugal where I essentially could not get myself in the red even with -100% tariffs and 0 tax. It was really frustrating.
Speaking of this i really hope they do bring foriegn investment into the game
We should be able to put money into latin america to boost the supply of rubber and fruit and such.
And it be just fun to bannana republic them
Overall victoria 2 economy better in terms of realism and in terms of gameplay, cause in Vic 3 you can just up your country for several decades just building factories which already profitable at market. In victoria 2 a lot of needs to do stable industry: illiterate people, workers, industry itself and spheres and amount of people.
Its ok, you studied Victoria 2 for 6 years. That's make you an economist, no need for PHDs and all that jazz.
Ah yes, Victoria 2 university
You also have the diplomatic option in Vic3 to force a nation to open its market. This way it ties into international relations and can lead to wars for market resources.
Yo, look up Prestige in the Vic2 wiki, Prestige was supposed to affect the market, but it doesn't, the only thing that matters is the overall ranking, so the #1 superpower gets all the goods, #2 gets scraps, #3 might be lucky if they can use any factories at all, and so on.
The fact that spawning new money into your Treasury with console commands creates cantillion effects and a business cycle just proves that Victoria 2 has the better economic simulation.
Yes.
11:54 AFAIK in Vic2 there's a bug that makes some money disappear and PDX couldn't locate when and why in time, so there's code that periodically creates new money out of thin air. The amount that disappeared got smaller with every patch, but it's a problem that is still present on newest patch.
Well considering Anarcho capitalists aren't in the game and actual anarcho-socalists, actual left wing anarchists are ingame its already more realistic.
A pdx dev said Anarcho-Capitalists are supposed to represent (albeit poorly) French Revolutionary/Napoleonic radicals.
@@CausticSpace That's really...really dumb and not even close to history.
@@CausticSpace why would you wanna play as a anarco-capitalist anyway, that just sounds like hell
@@toborer7895 To experiment with different playing styles, not doing the same game over and over again
anarcho capitalism was from the XIX century, years before anarcho-colectivism, so is accurate that vic2 include them. In that age ancap was called radical liberalism, so its indeed, historical accurate.
I think world market access based on prestige in vic2 is more realistic than Vic3.
For example, If you have nowadays a client in USA who wants to buy your resources at the same price than another client in Somalia, who do you choose first? Who do you think will be more stable and profitable client for you? You prioritize based on prestige in real life.
Quick correction: Market priority isn’t based on prestige ranking but global ranking. It just so happens that higher prestige = higher global rank
Is that not just inside of a sphere?
@@GameGabster I don't believe so
If I recall correctly the manual states prestige, but even the manual isn't always right. It might have been updated after release.
@@GameGabster im not sure but i thought it was the global rank mught be wrong
I have a question: The British Empire relied on mercantilism for its global economic dominance. And as well as being the birthplace of the industrial revolution, how did the likes of a later unified Germany surpass the UK's national economy? Was it down to policy, population, resources, or all of these? Please explain.
Innovation
@@Masiba7517 Excellent answer. College-level response! Thank you
There are a lot of interesting questions here each worth an essay on their own. However, I would like to challenge the idea that The British Empire relied on mercantilism for its global dominance. Mercantilism, in the sense of aiming to have a net export balance in order to hoard bullion in the belief that it increased wealth, was a popular way of thinking. Yes, much of early British and indeed European colonialism was built around a mercantilistic economic policy, but as the 18th century waned, so did mercantilism. Industrialisation in Britain and its peak colonial hegemony coincides with a freer approach to the trade balance. That is not to say that this initial position which allowed for the UK to industrialise was not built on mercantilism, but I would be wary to equate the two. Other colonial empires which famously continued on an extractivist approach collapsed (see Spain). The UK also famously lost the Thirteen colonies precisely because of their highly restrictive mercantilistic approach in the Americas. That said this is a complicated topic where there is a lot of literature and of which I am not an expert.
As for Germany surpassing the British Economy it is again something which there is a lot of research around. There is no way I could fit it all here, but for the sake of brevity I would say that it was a combination of all the factors you listed. Pinpointing a specific cause in a complex process is a futile endeavour. Economies also benefit greatly from the "catch-up effect", assuming that they have stable policies in place that allow for long term development.
I hope that answers some of your thoughts. Again, I would suggest turning to some more academic literature for better answers as this is just uncited take on it.
@@GameGabster Thank you, that's as good an answer as I hoped for.
1 population
Sure if you include the raj British empire wins
But the raj was incredibly under developed, that on an educated person basis Germany stacked up well.
2 geography
It also sits on the Rhine a major economic hub of Europe.
3 complacency
England failed to take advantage of its lead in chemistry. The tech to make dyes and pharmacuaticals from coal ash was developed in England but took off in germany.
Giving rise to the German chemical industry a big player even to this day (think bayer)
Speaking of prestige itcan be really op, as an example I was playing DOD venice, my budget went up by a hundred or so as soon as i became a gp
I honestly never liked the prestige system even if I understand why they chose it from a game design perspective.
@@GameGabster I mean it does give small nations a big help
@@GameGabster Access to the world market is regulated by each nation's overall rank[3], therefore the nation with the highest rank buys first, then the second highest and so on. If an item is in high demand, it is possible that nations with lower rankings will not have anything left to buy when their turn comes (this is common early on in the game with clipper convoys, for example, making it hard for an unciv to build or supply a navy). This also means that countries that have a higher rank will sell their goods first. (Victoria 2 Wiki)
Good video but I probably played over 2000 hours of Victoria 2 and hardly ever looked at the Trade screen
Cash is "injected" into the system by raising the productivity of workers, right?
In victoria 2?
@@GameGabster IRL, and supposedly in Victoria 3?
@@JD-jl4yy IRL: In the victorian era paper money was endogeneous to the supply of gold (the precious metal, given the international gold standard), so as to have 1:1 metal backing for every unit of cash in the economy. Effectively only countries with gold mines could mint currency. But nowadays it's different. The gold standard had been in shambles since the aftermath of WW1, but it wasn't until 1971 that it was finally abandoned during the Nixon shock. Since then cash gets injected/ejected from the economy by government monetary institutions in response to variations in reserves but also can vary without an observance for backing. It has been labelled "fiat" money, meaning "faith" money since its value stems not from actual backing but from the faith citizens deposit on their governments
What do you make of the fact that economic migration across far away countries was removed? Economically I think it is very misleading - just look at countries like Argentina or of course the US in this period
I hope that it is modelled somewhat well by the machenics that have been implemented, but I agree that it is misleading. It makes it seem as though people only move across continents if there is a catastrophe.
@@GameGabster the system also makes migration to anywhere except america impossible
Unfortunately, Victoria 2 economy is ridiculously broken. The idea for this game was great, but they most likely were unable to make it work, so it's only an illusion. What I mean is on the production tab is a complete mess. We have numbers that make no sense. Hover the pointer over the products. I'll give a random example. For tobacco. farmers produce 763, sold (domestic) = 602.022, sold (export) = 219.28. How does there numbers make sense?. Click on it and other huge surprises: Total produced = 763.09, Total used = 270.567. These numbers make no sense, the mess is huge with every single product. For wool production about 2000, sold domestically 0 although demand is great, clicking on it the pop consumes more than is produced internally. So where do they get it from? I noticed this when due to synthetic dye factories, nobody was working on dye plantations. I closed first all the dye factories, some farmers returned to work, but although there was a huge demand, they didn't bothered to work. That is in Bengals regions where there are 4 provinces that have over 1 mil population each, some have 2 mil or more. I made a test and bought max stockpile of dye and some returned to work for a day or town till the stockpile got full, then left again. With the dye factories closed, then demolished as a test, tariffs at max the fabric factories still work the get dye from heaven, the plantations produce some, but 0 sold internally. Makes not sense at all.
The version of vic 2 you use is a mod ? i don't think it vanillia
This was with GFM
@@GameGabster Thank for the re^ly
So the video title is just a straight up lie. Within the first minute the guy says he's a sociologist, not an economist.
@GameGabster Why when you open the menu windows do you see the map in background? When I open these I get a background image hiding the map. Is this a setting or mod?
Is a mod
GFM I think
Yes
Yeah Bring Back IMPERATOR!!! Paradox?!
So usefuln't?
You mean Victoria 2 vs Victoria 3 explained by a sociologist.
Well he did not say he even talked to an economist and being in sociology I would think he knows a few!!! Well but talking about the social aspects might get him even more views because I think we all know he will likely have way more knowledge about it being his field of study.
You are not wrong, though I did focus my studies on economic sociolgy.
Edit: I might do some videos later on with a more "sociological" approach when the game comes out.
@@donaldlyons17 You can't say "Well he did not say" when the title of the video literally says by an economist
I generally dislike sociologists who didnt get an economy degree talking about the economy as it leads to two sets of so called experts on the economy, would honestly be better if they get an economics professor in every sociology class relating to economy
I had classes by world class economists in economics. When I say I studied economics it wasn't just economic sociolgy. It was also classical and historical economics at graduate level.
@@GameGabster okay, reasonable