Hmmm good point!

cliffski님이 먼저 게시:

Hmmm good point!

:)

Why? You can monetize / privatize it?

TheGodlike님이 먼저 게시:

Why? You can monetize / privatize it?

Restrictions on personal freedom and consumption.

Well, socalists should upset too, atleast some of them.

As unrestricted access to basic resources is important for them.

TheGodlike님이 먼저 게시:

Why? You can monetize / privatize it?

But you make a good point, maybe the intensity of Liberal and Capitalist unhappiness should be reduced, whike socialists would be more unhappy.

Those water meters, should be making money if the player has nationalized the water industry, since the consumers can be billed and such.

Tundra C.님이 먼저 게시:

Those water meters, should be making money if the player has nationalized the water industry, since the consumers can be billed and such.

It would require a change in state enterprises, currently only State Healthcare And the Post Office can make an income.

Cliff would have to make that change.

Everything good pisses off capitalists and liberals. That's why they're some of the only groups I don't care about pissing off, along with ethnic minorities.

19th Century Jim Dandy님이 먼저 게시:

Everything good pisses off capitalists and liberals. That's why they're some of the only groups I don't care about pissing off, along with ethnic minorities.

Then your definition must be Far-Right.

:D

Better to be Far-Right, than Far-Wrong.

;)

Chantern15님이 먼저 게시:

Well, socalists should upset too, atleast some of them.

As unrestricted access to basic resources is important for them.

Why? Water meters aren't restricting consumption per se, they merely show how much water was consumed. This has largely two effects: 1. water consumption can be billed accurately 2. it can make people aware of their consumption, thus encouraging them to be more mindful (which is already reflected in the game)

While the first reason might be something socialists would be mad about (arguably it can be a net benefit as people also aren't billed on consumption they didn't do), it does require water to cost something. It is, however, not directly tied to this policy (I would see it more in the state water company policy). The second reason, if anything, would be more positive for socialists since it encourages people to be mindful, thus making sure there is enough water for everyone, which in some places is a primary concern. Wanting to ensure free access for all does not mean wanting excessively wasting water.

Padelboot님이 먼저 게시:

Chantern15님이 먼저 게시:

Well, socalists should upset too, atleast some of them.

As unrestricted access to basic resources is important for them.

Why? Water meters aren't restricting consumption per se, they merely show how much water was consumed. This has largely two effects: 1. water consumption can be billed accurately 2. it can make people aware of their consumption, thus encouraging them to be more mindful (which is already reflected in the game)

While the first reason might be something socialists would be mad about (arguably it can be a net benefit as people also aren't billed on consumption they didn't do), it does require water to cost something. It is, however, not directly tied to this policy (I would see it more in the state water company policy). The second reason, if anything, would be more positive for socialists since it encourages people to be mindful, thus making sure there is enough water for everyone, which in some places is a primary concern. Wanting to ensure free access for all does not mean wanting excessively wasting water.

Of course, when I say socialists, I don't mean all Socialists. It's a shorthand, I'm using what I would consider based off of real policy. When water gets privatized or even metered in a state-run water company, people especially the poor protest.

In Delhi, the Aam Aadmi Party (Common Man's Party, Aam is also Mango in Hindi :D ) has made water free for the poor, reduced the cost for the middle class (nominal amount, good subsidy), and subsidized it for the rich.

It's quite a popular policy. Even if some Capitalists or people in general might call it wasteful and inefficient.

It's merely an example of what I mean.

Chantern15님이 먼저 게시:

Tundra C.님이 먼저 게시:

Those water meters, should be making money if the player has nationalized the water industry, since the consumers can be billed and such.

It would require a change in state enterprises, currently only State Healthcare And the Post Office can make an income.

Cliff would have to make that change.

If there ever is a change then the pricing policy should be set to either be free on its further left slide, a fee if they comsume bellow the limit ex. Consumption under 20 cubic litters but residences/commerical/industrial, etc. have their own different flat fees ex. Residences have lower flat fee than commercial.

Im not so sure on what mode should be impemented on the furthest right of the slider.

Tundra C.님이 먼저 게시:

Chantern15님이 먼저 게시:

It would require a change in state enterprises, currently only State Healthcare And the Post Office can make an income.

Cliff would have to make that change.

If there ever is a change then the pricing policy should be set to either be free on its further left slide, a fee if they comsume bellow the limit ex. Consumption under 20 cubic litters but residences/commerical/industrial, etc. have their own different flat fees ex. Residences have lower flat fee than commercial.

Im not so sure on what mode should be impemented on the furthest right of the slider.

I don't think the UI allows for such granularity, on the furthest it would probably be every home has a meter.

Chantern15님이 먼저 게시:

TheGodlike님이 먼저 게시:

Why? You can monetize / privatize it?

But you make a good point, maybe the intensity of Liberal and Capitalist unhappiness should be reduced, whike socialists would be more unhappy.

I don't know about that, Socialists have a trend of regulation and rationing habits (historically) so I would think they would like that. Makes sense that capitalists or even conservatives (I am one) would be more unhappy about that as it hinders on personal freedoms as person before me mentioned. Maybe I am just speaking what I think though.

Mad Dog님이 먼저 게시:

Chantern15님이 먼저 게시:

But you make a good point, maybe the intensity of Liberal and Capitalist unhappiness should be reduced, whike socialists would be more unhappy.

I don't know about that, Socialists have a trend of regulation and rationing habits (historically) so I would think they would like that. Makes sense that capitalists or even conservatives (I am one) would be more unhappy about that as it hinders on personal freedoms as person before me mentioned. Maybe I am just speaking what I think though.

If you see my earlier comment, many socialists if not all, support unrestricted access to basic resources, I have also included a real life example.