Sure Doom! I'd be happy with that, if Dusty was also okay with it.

 

Also, I propose that after building a nice set amount for each nation, we scrap construction so that the game doesn't move too fast technologically.

 

-------------

 

Grim, what is this weapon? I'll adopt the argent as 50% of my foreign currency reserves.

I would think Japan would have an advantage. It has a multitude of engineers, aircraft construction expertise in civil and military aviation, and the fact that it's corraberating with other powers to do it.

 

Its barely based on aviation laws, and the engineering uses different technology to anything your engineers would be used to using.

Retech I will PM you the details.

I already have something similar (earth to orbit), only it's way cheaper than a P-Jet, and uses none of the same principles (I assume), so atleast I can do some things against Archi...

Just remember to send the details of them to Sere, Doom.

I only have a prototype built now. I'll send em along in a few days when I write it up.

As part of Project Monarch Butterfly, aircraft carriers are being fitted/have been fitted with new reactive armor plates and anti-missle defences. The technology was modifed from tanks, where they sometimes fired missles at missles heading for it, to detonate the missle before it hit the tank. The reactive armor plates are designed to be replaced and refitted during battle, and have a minor explosive charge outwards, to reduce the power of shaped charges and torpedoes.

 

This reduces the vulnerability of aircraft carriers to torpedoes and bombs slightly.

I'll do the income thing again, this enabling me to actually keep track of increased population, etc:

[spoiler=Income]Population

25 668 300

 

Avarage income

$125 000

 

Tax level

45 %

 

Tax income

$1 443 841 875 000

 

Spendable

$14 438 418 750, a

 

 

No way you're average gdp is 125,000. Even if you just controlled Norway, that'd be a 150% increase. (I'm talking about Purchasing Power Parity, not Nominal). If we're talking about nominal, that's a 300% increase for sweden, and around a 60% increase for norway, and a 300% increase for Finland as well. Also, most people wouldn't stand for 45% tax.

Also, your gdp went from roughly 1 trillion to over 3.2 trillion. That means an 8% increase per year, and considering we were yelling at retech over 5%...

What I ended up with as tax income is just a few b above the total gdp of my countries so it isn't so mouch increased from 2009 gdp, unless you want me to go complicated with companies and such I'll go with it.

I'll do the income thing again, this enabling me to actually keep track of increased population, etc:

[spoiler=Income]Population

25 668 300

 

Avarage income

$125 000

 

Tax level

45 %

 

Tax income

$1 443 841 875 000

 

Spendable

$14 438 418 750, a

 

 

No way you're average gdp is 125,000. Even if you just controlled Norway, that'd be a 150% increase. (I'm talking about Purchasing Power Parity, not Nominal). If we're talking about nominal, that's a 300% increase for sweden, and around a 60% increase for norway, and a 300% increase for Finland as well. Also, most people wouldn't stand for 45% tax.

Also, your gdp went from roughly 1 trillion to over 3.2 trillion. That means an 8% increase per year, and considering we were yelling at retech over 5%...

What I ended up with as tax income is just a few b above the total gdp of my countries so it isn't so mouch increased from 2009 gdp, unless you want me to go complicated with companies and such I'll go with it.

Um, yeah it is, it's a huge increase. That's like the US getting 13 trillion in tax revenue each year, and saying it's not that big an increase. The fact is, you increased at 8% per year, which is way too much.

Wait, what?

 

Your tax income is above your total GDP? What the devil?

He means his tax income is higher than his 2009 gdp. And hes saying its not that big an increase... In other news Scandinavians revolt for having almost half their money taken by the government.

For instance if you a western country were opening up two to three new markets for the first ~10 years of the boom you could probably expect a ~6% increase per year at maximum (this is assuming that you are opening a large market or two). With no new ways of getting income there is no way in hell that you can get an 8% rise in gdp per year.

I increased at 10% per year for like two years, due to massive trade reforms, the founding of SATO, legalization of most drugs and so on. It slowed down dramatically after that though. It went down to 5%, and is now increasing at 3-4% annually.

Hell if you count my membership in FETA that could mean another 2% at maximum for a few years. On the note of FETA it is now courting india to join it's organization.

I'll do the income thing again, this enabling me to actually keep track of increased population, etc:

[spoiler=Income]Population

25 668 300

 

Avarage income

$125 000

 

Tax level

45 %

 

Tax income

$1 443 841 875 000

 

Spendable

$14 438 418 750, a

 

 

No way you're average gdp is 125,000. Even if you just controlled Norway, that'd be a 150% increase. (I'm talking about Purchasing Power Parity, not Nominal). If we're talking about nominal, that's a 300% increase for sweden, and around a 60% increase for norway, and a 300% increase for Finland as well. Also, most people wouldn't stand for 45% tax.

Also, your gdp went from roughly 1 trillion to over 3.2 trillion. That means an 8% increase per year, and considering we were yelling at retech over 5%...

What I ended up with as tax income is just a few b above the total gdp of my countries so it isn't so mouch increased from 2009 gdp, unless you want me to go complicated with companies and such I'll go with it.

Um, yeah it is, it's a huge increase. That's like the US getting 13 trillion in tax revenue each year, and saying it's not that big an increase. The fact is, you increased at 8% per year, which is way too much.

Considdering I gave people money earlier to get their standards up I guess it's fair, that and I "had to" get round numbers.

 

As for tax level it's about the one that's now (IRL) if you add just three percent to "represent" the wealth tax.

Giving them money will only put your country into debt, and it won't help raise their financial statuses. Considering you're in the most developed area of the world, giving them money would do even less. Your economic growth rate should literally be the lowest out of all of us, except maybe the federation.

So... you give them money which would disperse to other countries and then tax the blood out of them?

Wait, what?

 

Your tax income is above your total GDP? What the devil?

Tax income (here representing the entire GDP for the sake of simplicity) is one hundred times the "leftovers".

 

 

Giving all households 100,000 NOK, wouldn't/didn't lower economy, only give beople a chance to get back on their feet or buy something they need.

Yay, another economess.

Mather, wouldn't giving everyone 100,000 NOK raise inflation to such a high level that no one would trust your currency anymore?

Why? I gave them of the money owned by the governement, not fresh from a mint.

 

Sorry for trying to make it simpler guys, thought you'd prefer I made something showing my current income and such so that I couldn't cheat.

We're just disputing your income. 8% is an absurd growth rate.

 

Also, I did the math for my country/SATO.

Population: 441,645,000

GDP: 5.8 trillion

GDP/Capita=~ 14,000

Can we just simplify economics...somehow?

Of course there's a simple economics thing. I've been trying to use it for a while. Basically, steady growth rate, and budget is 1% of GDP. Done, easy.

Here's all you need for population too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_future_population

You can adjust it slightly too for any changes you've put into place.