Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Test you budget balancing skills!

Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 5:29:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://budgethero.gather.com...

At first try to do what you would actually do in office.

I cut taxes and spending, and and the budget burst moved from 2029 to 2034. Not all that long, but it I would have repealed the Bush tax cuts, it would of been pushed out to 2059.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 4:57:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:57:08 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I have no idea for strategies to this

Aah, yes. The game tells liberals they lose when they spend too much money. IRL, the system doesn't tell liberals they lose until their is a depression. :)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 6:36:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 4:57:46 PM, Nags wrote:
Aah, yes. The game tells liberals they lose when they spend too much money. IRL, the system doesn't tell liberals they lose until their is a depression. :)

Thats funny, because apparently "liberals" everywhere have been getting kudos because we're avoiding depression. I guess that means we've won!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 6:41:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 6:36:33 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/23/2009 4:57:46 PM, Nags wrote:
Aah, yes. The game tells liberals they lose when they spend too much money. IRL, the system doesn't tell liberals they lose until their is a depression. :)

Thats funny, because apparently "liberals" everywhere have been getting kudos because we're avoiding depression. I guess that means we've won!

No. Everybody sucks.

http://www.visualeconomics.com...
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 6:41:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 6:36:33 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/23/2009 4:57:46 PM, Nags wrote:
Aah, yes. The game tells liberals they lose when they spend too much money. IRL, the system doesn't tell liberals they lose until their is a depression. :)

Thats funny, because apparently "liberals" everywhere have been getting kudos because we're avoiding depression. I guess that means we've won!

Proving my point. Keep thinking short term, make my day.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 6:50:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Wow, Russia has barely any debt... thats pretty cool.

But, I digress. The debt issue is serious, but what do you believe is worse; spending when we need it, or allowing a depression to occur outright.

I know, I know - "the market will right itself." F*ck the market, though - people, industry and business in general had to be protected, and unlike some other complacent people here, most preferred not to wait for God knows how long before the market began to "right itself," if it ever did.

So, yeah, the debt is increased, and its bad in the long run - but that only gives you ammunition to hold people to task after we're out of this mess, for which this stimulus and the increase in deficits and debt is needed.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:01:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 8:56:53 PM, mongeese wrote:
Smart Russia.

The Russian Federation has been a country for 18 years. I'm not impressed.

Stupid America.

Ditto.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:04:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:01:52 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/23/2009 8:56:53 PM, mongeese wrote:
Smart Russia.

The Russian Federation has been a country for 18 years. I'm not impressed.

Well, their current 18-year debt coming after a failed government is smaller than our 1-year budget deficit. I'm impressed.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:06:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The game does not account for Reaganomics. It has Socialist bias.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:12:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:04:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/23/2009 9:01:52 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/23/2009 8:56:53 PM, mongeese wrote:
Smart Russia.

The Russian Federation has been a country for 18 years. I'm not impressed.

Well, their current 18-year debt coming after a failed government is smaller than our 1-year budget deficit. I'm impressed.

Still no. The gdp of Russia is about 1/12 of the US.

Also, if you projected Russia's debt at the current rate in the same amount of years in which the US has been in existence - the debt would be well over 100% of gdp.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:14:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:12:36 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/23/2009 9:04:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/23/2009 9:01:52 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/23/2009 8:56:53 PM, mongeese wrote:
Smart Russia.

The Russian Federation has been a country for 18 years. I'm not impressed.

Well, their current 18-year debt coming after a failed government is smaller than our 1-year budget deficit. I'm impressed.

Still no. The gdp of Russia is about 1/12 of the US.

Also, if you projected Russia's debt at the current rate in the same amount of years in which the US has been in existence - the debt would be well over 100% of gdp.

I'm comparing today's US to today's Russia, not the past US to today's Russia. The past US was much smarter than today's Russia.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:16:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 6:36:33 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/23/2009 4:57:46 PM, Nags wrote:
Aah, yes. The game tells liberals they lose when they spend too much money. IRL, the system doesn't tell liberals they lose until their is a depression. :)

Thats funny, because apparently "liberals" everywhere have been getting kudos because we're avoiding depression. I guess that means we've won!

Creating a huge one by putting it on the shelf for later, is not avoiding it. If such were the case, we'd never have a crisis in the first place, because the first round of debt wouldn't have gotten us into it. :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:16:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:06:59 PM, mongoose wrote:
The game does not account for Reaganomics. It has Socialist bias.

Lol @ "socialist bias." Quite a few things missing for it to be "socialist." If anything, it does have a bias towards state control of its budget, including control of certain things like social security, medicare, etc., and moves based on what it could reasonably do with enough popular support - you know, something that realistically occurs, unlike this fantasy land where everyone agrees the free market is best unfettered and without watch.

And it might not account for Reaganomics because no one in their right minds would put that back in and expect to be re-elected.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:30:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Looks like I did something right.... (this game was fun : ) really)

I achieved 3 of 3 badges (economic stimulus, competitive advantage, Green), pushed the budget to from 2028 to 2070, downsized the government from 22.7% to 20.4%, reduced the debt from 18.1 trillion to 9 trillion, got 4 stars!....

Biggest cards:

Cut military spending by 10%, Cap and limit greenhouse gases, Repeal Bush tax cuts and tax the rich, increase social security taxes for the wealthy, and add 50 cents to gas tax....

Comparing my results to others.... looks like I did waaaay above average. I should run for office O.o

Average budget bust year was 2047. I hit 2070!
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:32:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:30:24 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Comparing my results to others.... looks like I did waaaay above average. I should run for office O.o

Good idea! And the gamers who pwn at Call of Duty should be the Secretary of Defense and Generals. Oh wait... virtual =/= reality. :)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:34:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I actually managed the budget game well once, and using the cards for health, effeciency and something else. I got the effeciency one and nearly got the health one, and I think I got whatever it is I can't remember; I gutted America's military though. XD
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:35:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:32:55 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/23/2009 9:30:24 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Comparing my results to others.... looks like I did waaaay above average. I should run for office O.o


Good idea! And the gamers who pwn at Call of Duty should be the Secretary of Defense and Generals. Oh wait... virtual =/= reality. :)

Because you're an @sshole: http://askville.amazon.com...
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:38:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
So after you tax the rich, they should stop spending as much, plumetting the economy into a depression. But the game doesn't account for that.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:40:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:38:04 PM, mongoose wrote:
So after you tax the rich, they should stop spending as much, plumetting the economy into a depression. But the game doesn't account for that.

Because thats simply not how reality operates.

The rich are still rich, even if they're taxed. They aren't just going to stop spending because they don't have enough money to spend; they have tonnes, and they'll spend it regardless.

The only reason they might stop spending is if there isn't anything worth spending it on, or investing in, etc., kind of like any other person.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:41:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Looks to me like you just either discouraged the rich or moved them out of the country, also moved carbon intensive production out of the country, and therefore left yourself a lot less to tax, and more people collecting on whatever entitlements you left going on.

And contradicted your own values, even the soft version of them that allows you a flat tax. :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:42:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The rich are still rich, even if they're taxed. They aren't just going to stop spending because they don't have enough money to spend; they have tonnes, and they'll spend it regardless.
It's not "Spending" it that matters, it's what they produce. They will not produce as much-- if they don't get as much out of being a producer. It's bloody easy to spend things, unless they don't exist to spend.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:44:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:40:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/23/2009 9:38:04 PM, mongoose wrote:
So after you tax the rich, they should stop spending as much, plumetting the economy into a depression. But the game doesn't account for that.

Because thats simply not how reality operates.

The rich are still rich, even if they're taxed. They aren't just going to stop spending because they don't have enough money to spend; they have tonnes, and they'll spend it regardless.

The only reason they might stop spending is if there isn't anything worth spending it on, or investing in, etc., kind of like any other person.

The luxury tax almost killed the yacht industry.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:49:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:42:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's not "Spending" it that matters, it's what they produce. They will not produce as much-- if they don't get as much out of being a producer. It's bloody easy to spend things, unless they don't exist to spend.

The rich are still getting exuberant amounts of money for producing, even if they pay higher taxes. Most are satisfied, and those that aren't, well, they can f*ck off if they want. Just allows for more to break into their market.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:59:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:49:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/23/2009 9:42:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's not "Spending" it that matters, it's what they produce. They will not produce as much-- if they don't get as much out of being a producer. It's bloody easy to spend things, unless they don't exist to spend.

The rich are still getting exuberant amounts of money for producing
And? The less exorbitant, the more will slow down a bit. People aren't uniform in what amount will motivate them to do what amount of work, and work isn't a binary phenomenon. Every little bit they can get means more will want to do it. Especially when it's not a little bit (Taxes are a huge bit), and it's so visible (It's being snatched away from them, what better way to make them pay attention even if it was little?

Even if motivation was binary, they still wouldn't be investing as much (Which means they don't produce as much, and "government investments" so far have demonstrated very little return, or the government would not need taxes, it would be self sufficient).

even if they pay higher taxes. Most are satisfied, and those that aren't, well, they can f*ck off if they want. Just allows for more to break into their market.
They do f*** off. What happens is the fellows who "break in" aren't as competent as the fellow f***ing off (they'd be breaking in anyway otherwise). Which means you get a lesser quality high-end worker on average than you would otherwise, with less to invest in future production.

And this is assuming their idea of f***ing off doesn't include moving their operations to a lower tax jurisdiction.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 10:20:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 9:59:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And? The less exorbitant, the more will slow down a bit. People aren't uniform in what amount will motivate them to do what amount of work, and work isn't a binary phenomenon. Every little bit they can get means more will want to do it. Especially when it's not a little bit (Taxes are a huge bit), and it's so visible (It's being snatched away from them, what better way to make them pay attention even if it was little?
While its all well and fine to give incentives for the rich to stay here, it isn't fine that they get away Scot free on the basis that, you know, they're rich, and productive (maybe)! They get taxed like any other citizen of the country, and most realize that and suck it up - even if it is a progressive tax. (And I'll admit, I'm no fan of progressive taxation. It is quite unfair to those that have *usually* earned their riches. But its a necessary evil, unfortunately.)

Its not a hard concept, you know. You're a citizen of the country, and the sovereign state exercises authority over it; if you want to be able to make the money you want, you have to part with some of it in order to keep that access up, as well as the many protections that go with that access. It occurs in every country around the word - some jurisdictions more than others, or less. Any smart business person would realize that you have to give a little to get something back.

They do f*** off. What happens is the fellows who "break in" aren't as competent as the fellow f***ing off (they'd be breaking in anyway otherwise). Which means you get a lesser quality high-end worker on average than you would otherwise, with less to invest in future production.

This is assuming that everyone who doesn't make it rich on Day One isn't a high-end worker, which is an incorrect assumption. Entrepreneurs rise up all the time, and all they are looking for is an opportunity to break in; when they don't have that opportunity, because say some tycoon has already cornered the market, if that tycoon leaves because of his petty desire to be taxed less, there are many others willing to take his place, because now the opportunity has presented itself.

And this is assuming their idea of f***ing off doesn't include moving their operations to a lower tax jurisdiction.

As I said; someone will take their place if they do. That is the beauty of the free market, is it not?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 10:29:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 10:20:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/23/2009 9:59:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And? The less exorbitant, the more will slow down a bit. People aren't uniform in what amount will motivate them to do what amount of work, and work isn't a binary phenomenon. Every little bit they can get means more will want to do it. Especially when it's not a little bit (Taxes are a huge bit), and it's so visible (It's being snatched away from them, what better way to make them pay attention even if it was little?
While its all well and fine to give incentives for the rich to stay here, it isn't fine that they get away Scot free on the basis that, you know, they're rich, and productive (maybe)!
Well, the basis for them getting away Scot free is being human in my book. The rich and productive part is just to keep it flat considering that you don't care about all that.

They do f*** off. What happens is the fellows who "break in" aren't as competent as the fellow f***ing off (they'd be breaking in anyway otherwise). Which means you get a lesser quality high-end worker on average than you would otherwise, with less to invest in future production.

This is assuming that everyone who doesn't make it rich on Day One isn't a high-end worker
Someone who cannot possibly be rich unless someone else gets pissed out of the system and throws away the game is certainly not as high as the person who wins that competition anytime they want to. And less production for more cost will result from it.


And this is assuming their idea of f***ing off doesn't include moving their operations to a lower tax jurisdiction.

As I said; someone will take their place if they do.
Wait wait wait.

Say I make computer OS's. I'm paying 25% taxes a year.

Some politician gets it in his head that he wants 33%.
I move to some place that only takes 18% (Say I liked the area enough to pay an extra 7%, but 15% is pushing it.
For the purpose of the government's pocketbook, who is taking my place? He sure as hell ain't selling OS's. I didn't leave the market I'm just living somewhere else. My OS's are still being sold in the same markets, the guy who produces them just isn't around for Johnny G to collect from. The government does not "replace" that revenue--they've lost it to the other country's better offer.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 4:01:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I always play with efficient government, easiest one to achieve, along with green. Meh to any others.

I'm going to try do a Republican with National Security, Competitive advantage and Energy Independence :)
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.