If a video game makes communists OP, when we have 100 years of historical proof of the opposite, then it just means the game is unrealistic.
Players are also finding that a properly implemented communist economy can lead them to become not just a dominant world power, but one in which the average standard of living for the lower and middle classes is as high, or higher, than that of the upper strata in other nations.
And yet this is so clearly untrue in real life, that the Chinese Communist Party had to turn to extreme unregulated capitalism to have any hope of developing its economy.
It's pretty clear that the developers here simply have a poor understanding of basic economics and internal political power such that you could easily refute how their game works by pointing out real life examples that contradict it.
Welfare states are good for the societal losers, and bad for societal winners, as well as society as a whole, since the primary goal of a welfare state is to subsidize poor people who make bad decisions. The far superior choice from a 'whole society" perspective, is to let the poor suffer, since that's what they deserve, and take all the money that would have otherwise been wasted on the poor, and use it to promote GDP growth instead. After a few decades of this, trickle down economics - which actually works despite being bad mouthed by libtards - would result in the "poor" looking like "American poor" as in: walking around with $1,000 iphones, getting morbidly obese off of highly processed foods, and sitting their fat asses at home watching their 75 inch OLED flat screen TVs.
If a video game makes communists OP, when we have 100 years of historical proof of the opposite, then it just means the game is unrealistic.
And yet this is so clearly untrue in real life, that the Chinese Communist Party had to turn to extreme unregulated capitalism to have any hope of developing its economy.
It's pretty clear that the developers here simply have a poor understanding of basic economics and internal political power such that you could easily refute how their game works by pointing out real life examples that contradict it.
Welfare states are good for the societal losers, and bad for societal winners, as well as society as a whole, since the primary goal of a welfare state is to subsidize poor people who make bad decisions. The far superior choice from a 'whole society" perspective, is to let the poor suffer, since that's what they deserve, and take all the money that would have otherwise been wasted on the poor, and use it to promote GDP growth instead. After a few decades of this, trickle down economics - which actually works despite being bad mouthed by libtards - would result in the "poor" looking like "American poor" as in: walking around with $1,000 iphones, getting morbidly obese off of highly processed foods, and sitting their fat asses at home watching their 75 inch OLED flat screen TVs.