The plan was for 4 years. They shouldn't have any expectations of getting consumer goods at the promised levels at any specific time before that. It could be 2 years, or 3 years, or at the very end of the 4 years plan, and the promise would still be upheld.
It's wrong to demand that the treasury drop everything to get Consumer goods at the cost of every other promise, not when there are more efficient ways to get the same results at the end.
Unless there was some condition on that list of promise that specified the level of consumer goods produced at times agreed on beforehand, then they have their plan, of 4 years, to wait with. The election won't be changing anything for the plan itself anyways, not affect it while it's still in progress.
The electorate will respond to this argument by saying "fuck you" and firing the condescending technocrats who are lecturing them on why they should expect nothing for another two years and be grateful that they were promised anything at all.
Treasury has been consistently pushing the heavy industrial expansion line for four and a half years, ever since 2050. We promised to shift focus during this plan. If at the time of the election (2055) we are
still acting as though that promise did not exist, the population will not wait another four years until 2059 to see whether we actually deign to keep our promise by 2057. They will vote
right then and there, in response to what we have and have not actually delivered: lots of tiberium abatement and heavy machinery and
nothing else.
They have wanted us to change course for years and continue to want this, and if we continue to ignore them, they have the power to replace the legislators that support us with a new legislature that they can be more confident will
make us do what they want.
In our defense, we need some amount of cap goods and electricity to supply our consumer goods and military commitment. Though we do need to really get started in quarter 3. Unless we want to put ourselves at the mercy of a hostile coalition by the end of the plan. We can probably knock out 30 or even more by the end of the second year.
You're not wrong, but making a direction towards the consumer goods buildup as soon as possible, even if it means dropping the single-minded maximization of heavy industrial capacity, is still likely to be well-taken by the public.
Grants ladies and gentleman
Do granrs
,boost the growing market abd outsurce goods production
(Except clothing,people want more than potato sacks for t shirts)
No, actually.
See
here. Look at the estimated resource costs per point of consumer goods.
When we've more or less used up the options that cost 15 Resources per point of Goods or less (and there are quite a few of them),
then it will make sense to do this with grants. Right now the only reason to use grants is to lock in pre-committed budgeting for consumer goods that we can't renege on later. And while conversations with
@marids make me find that option
awfully tempting for some reason, I don't think that's a good choice right now when our Resource budget
is quite tight and we legitimately
do need to accelerate tiberium mining to give ourselves some breathing room,
along with the consumer goods production.
They're only still open because people keep arriving.
I totally think that we should start
[ ] Yellow Zone Fortress Towns (Phase 2)
[ ] Fiber-Optic Expansion
[ ] Yellow Zone Light Industrial Sectors
next turn just to really increase and lock in the yellow zone vote. And well, that is 12(?) consumer goods right there so it helps to stick it to those capitalist pig-dogs.
Fiber-optic expansions aren't a great way to crank up consumer goods though the logistics boost is nothing to sneeze at and helps.
On the other hand, upgrades to communications are likely to increase yellow zone voter participation, which
will help us, so... it's not that bad an idea. It's just not cheap and not optimal for specifically consumer goods.
Also, bear in mind that upscaling fortress towns is tricky if it doesn't go with upscaling shell production.
