Only have one task this quarter, top of tasks is bankruptcy; I'm thinking about possibly doing a reform, administration reform. If I did bankruptcy this quarter I'm not sure what to do, either play it safe choosing to provide liquidity to the banks and pay some of debts or letting the banks fail and be restructured. Seems the former would be better short term for the economy, but the latter would help long term (no inefficient banks prompted up; too big to fail). I'll wait until tomorrow to decide which.
You should let the banks fail; without government intervention, solid financial systems have typically been able to recover on their own, in spite of the fear mongering.
I was thinking it's possible to get more productive per person and from automation. A highly innovative technological economy of educated people, to do so with sustainability in mind. Trying to improve the economy more per person with less people, relying less on continued growth while do more with what growth I have and get.
Indeed, but the economy in this game is simplistic, and I have determined that automation essentially causes your economy to collapse in the end and have perpetual low growth. There have been several posts describing this exact problem; the game is not built to run for extremely long periods of play.
But you're correct more people would equate a potentially larger economy. It seems more difficult to handle unemployment and debt considering social spending. Would require greater expansionary policies to employ people, relying more on increased spending and artificially increasing money supply etc. More economic planning then simply decreasing unemployment by restricting immigration while promoting economic growth, which mostly solves the deficit/debt itself.
Unemployment is just a number. In the end, your goal should be to increase total productive employment (TPE) not total employment. The influx of immigrants encourages GDP creators to proliferate.
I agree, tends to be how I think as well. But not sure if increasing excise is the best idea now, I don't want further inflating of an inflated economy above money supply. I guess if taxes on acquisition were decreased it could counter with higher savings from less consumption caused by higher prices (hopefully higher investments too). Definitely something I'll think about for this winter's budget.
Excise taxes do not lead to significant inflation. Prices are typically marked up by 100's of percentages. This allows employers ample room to alter prices to affordability, regardless of excise tax. Since mark-ups are near universal, it wouldn't effect small business significantly negatively. The opposite effect happens as a result of high income taxes. Likewise, unlike with high excise taxes, high acquisition taxes lead to total collapse of economy and society. Acquisition taxes are ideally 0, excise taxes ideally meet expenditures required to meet justice and administrative needs. It is also hard for GDP creators to adjust for capital and tariff taxes, and likewise those should ideally zero, with the bulk of your taxes coming from excise.
Oddly I try to be realistic about defense spending, probably won't let military under safety go below seventy percent or the lowest sixty to seventy percent. Decreasing subsides was one way to help with the deficit, but I also liked the idea about fairness (no corporate welfare). For this state, it's another reason I haven't consider a major shift from the progressivity of taxation until recently, as I considered the need or benefit. Same for why with a low deficit I didn't further decrease pensions, originally I wanted to both decrease it as a percentage of the budget and slow it's growth (budget inflation).
Fine, but know that realistically there are some nations that smooch of the United States and spend hardly a dime on military, which allows them to fund exorbitant and inefficient welfare programs.
This state I'm taking more of a democractic approach (Constitutional Democracy, not Constitutional Republic). Not having a budget/deficit problem, I don't want unnecessary and unpopular decreases of spending.
Decreasing spending does not lead to unpopularity. It is mainly decisions that lead to unpopularity. The best chance of you getting deselected is:
A) economy crashes
B) You have too many "very important" decisions undone. For example, I had 5 VI decisions undone, with about 40% voting for me. After I did them, I had 68%. I have been enacting the tax and economic reforms I have been espousing and currently sit with a 14B surplus, with decent popularity (enough to get in two reforms).
As for education, I need smarter and more skilled workers for higher employment (higher productivity). I think for Family, I do want slower increases in population; but I had decided to wait for certain tasks. For example while I did maternity/paternity for those who have children, plus incentivizing foster care; when it comes to birth limit, I was thinking promoting contraceptions and sterilization to decrease population growth.
The skilled workers go to private school regardless. You don't need to be smart to work in a factory; factory children don't pay attention in "free" government school. Regardless, the market would provide private education at an affordable cost for most adults, including poor (assuming working) ones. In my opinion, the "birth limit" decision is poorly designed. There is no option to just let people be and not subsidize; either force or state intervention. I just chose referendum. As for maternity/paternity leave, that is redundant. Fathers are typically the bread winners. Women can negotiate maternity leave benefits with their employers.