Industry/Economic strength

[Suverina]

Well I've been thinking. My country(government) owns EVERYTHING. verey industry, basically everything. And my economy is strong. Now Italgria and I are quite equal, he having a market-economy has private enterprises. But isn'y my country actual more powerful when owning EVERYTHING? Like i can easily make all my car manufacturers into tank manufactures while Italgria's company has to do it on their own. Maybe with support of the government. But Italgria has to buy the tanks from that manufacturer if so. I don't I already own it. But NS doesn't represent this. How should we represent it in RP?

[Adaptus]

The thing I have always said about Capatilism and Socialism, and also the thing that won me over to Capatalism is this.

 

In Socialism, you main own everything, which may give you a large income, however, you then have to maintain everything also, and everythign is on your heads. If you're health system collapsed, you dont have private health services to help you out.

 

Yet, with Capatilism, you dont have to worry about most things. For example, if you dont have enough support staff joining for military, for example air force ground crew, you can just contract some. Plus with Capatilism, you can alsways garantee someone with capitalise one something, so what ever you need will be there. With Socialism, you have to cover everything, from weapons, to cars, to lighters, to pens, to even paper. It all costs you money in the end.

[Social Democratic Confederation]

 

"Capitalism, economic system in which private individuals and business firms carry on the production and exchange of goods and services through a complex network of prices and markets. First, basic production facilities?land and capital?are privately owned. Capital in this sense means the buildings, machines, and other equipment used to produce goods and services that are ultimately consumed. Second, economic activity is organized and coordinated through the interaction of buyers and sellers (or producers) in markets. Third, owners of land and capital as well as the workers they employ are free to pursue their own self-interests in seeking maximum gain from the use of their resources and labor in production. Consumers are free to spend their incomes in ways that they believe will yield the greatest satisfaction. This principle, called consumer sovereignty, reflects the idea that under capitalism producers will be forced by competition to use their resources in ways that will best satisfy the wants of consumers. Self-interest and the pursuit of gain lead them to do this. Fourth, under this system a minimum of government supervision is required; if competition is present, economic activity will be self-regulating. Government will be necessary only to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, and guarantee contracts."

 

So, capitalism is a minimal cost system that basically runs itself and provides for any need. From the nation as a whole to the individual consumer, every need can be paid for. And thanks to competetive marketry, prices can stay low and satisfactory.

 

Edited July 29, 2006 by The Aristocratic Confederation (see edit history)

[Mongol-Swedes]

Precisely why I created the legal and internationally recognized Medicinal Marijuana Research and Trade Agreement: To cover costs. Imagine if nations legalized and taxed that stuff in the real world! You'd definetly see a drop in crime, terrorism, etc.

 

 

Good times on R and R...

Edited July 29, 2006 by Social Alliance of Mongol-Swedes (see edit history)

[Suverina]

In Socialism, you main own everything, which may give you a large income, however, you then have to maintain everything also, and everythign is on your heads. If you're health system collapsed, you dont have private health services to help you out.

 

Mod, please clean out everything that hasn't anything to do with the ACTUAL question. Please.

Well. Did that answer my question??????!!?

 

And in communism the state owns everything, btw it's not even an ideology! It's called plan-economy!!!!!!!!!!! And something works better when you don't strive to get money, because you strive to help other people than yourself. BUT THAT IS OFF TOPIC!

 

ON TOPIC PLEASE.

[Social Democratic Confederation]

Yes, let us imagine the tremendous drop in economies world-wide as everyone is too baked to do anythng productive. Soon enough, nothing gets done, the world rots away thanks to the moron policy of potheads! What a stupid idea...

[Suverina]

STAY ON TOPIC FOR GODS SAKE YOU SPAMMER!

 

Edited July 29, 2006 by Suverina (see edit history)

[Social Democratic Confederation]

NS doesn't represent this. How should we represent it in RP?

I think the Swedish kid wants us to talk about this ^^^

[Suverina]

YES FOR GODS SAKE!

 

[Mongol-Swedes]

@ Aristo

 

MEDICINAL. MEDICINAL. Automatically assume everyone's going to get half-baked is the most common scare-tactic, Apocalypse theory that fundamental 'valuists' cling to as they justify their 'war on drugs', which generates a tremendous cost in and of itself, not to mention the pain and suffering that the black market element creates, as well as putting normal, everyday people in prison for having a littlle weed on them strains that system as well, and disrupts the economy further by creating a large bloc of people the government has to care for.

 

Moving on...

 

I'm no major economist, so I couldn't really tell you how to establish a quantitative standard to apply to each nation here.

 

A random point I'd like to put out as sort of a brainstorm.

 

Obviously, engaging in alot of high-intensity warfare, or doing alot of big spending in a large, conventional military is going to drain your economy, as the military does not usually give any sort of monetary return on any investments (the military doesn't 'make money' through its operations), unless, say, your 'national guard' or whatever also doubles as a volunteer labor force in your nation, or gets 'hired' by other nations as a security force or some crazy idea like that.

 

[Adaptus]

Suv, in theory Italgria shoutl have a stronger nation than your self. Due to the fact you're paying for most of what he gets for free.

[Italgria]

Well I've been thinking. My country(government) owns EVERYTHING. verey industry, basically everything. And my economy is strong. Now Italgria and I are quite equal, he having a market-economy has private enterprises. But isn'y my country actual more powerful when owning EVERYTHING? Like i can easily make all my car manufacturers into tank manufactures while Italgria's company has to do it on their own. Maybe with support of the government. But Italgria has to buy the tanks from that manufacturer if so. I don't I already own it. But NS doesn't represent this. How should we represent it in RP?

Lucky my I take economics in my school and saw a video about this. Ever heared of Russia? They had everything as you have Suverina. And they had a total crush down of their economy. Now what I have is a so called circular flow of income thanks to the private-enterprise. Back to the Russia example. They were following the Keynes system, same as you are doing with your nation. His main believes were the following: government should interfere, wartime economy, aimed to rewrite rules of economic. Now this way of thinking prevailed in the real world until 1970s or in America until the Great Depression. Whilst on the other hand there was Hayek which had the theory that market interference is bad and that the market should be let laissez-faire. This is the economic model my nation follows and real world shows that this is one of the best models although there has to be a bit of government interference to let everything work. Now to your question. Total government control leads to too many problems (Russia) and this type of ruling would lead to totalitarism. If that is what you want I can say anything against it. It is your decission. As you may know 1944 churchill followed the Hayek system. It's believe where that little inflation is acceptable which will create less unemployment. Whilst your example that you can just change your automobile industry into tank industry, have you ever thought of the side effect that this would have on your population?

 

"Capitalism, economic system in which private individuals and business firms carry on the production and exchange of goods and services through a complex network of prices and markets. First, basic production facilities?land and capital?are privately owned. Capital in this sense means the buildings, machines, and other equipment used to produce goods and services that are ultimately consumed. Second, economic activity is organized and coordinated through the interaction of buyers and sellers (or producers) in markets. Third, owners of land and capital as well as the workers they employ are free to pursue their own self-interests in seeking maximum gain from the use of their resources and labor in production. Consumers are free to spend their incomes in ways that they believe will yield the greatest satisfaction. This principle, called consumer sovereignty, reflects the idea that under capitalism producers will be forced by competition to use their resources in ways that will best satisfy the wants of consumers. Self-interest and the pursuit of gain lead them to do this. Fourth, under this system a minimum of government supervision is required; if competition is present, economic activity will be self-regulating. Government will be necessary only to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, and guarantee contracts."

 

So, capitalism is a minimal cost system that basically runs itself and provides for any need. From the nation as a whole to the individual consumer, every need can be paid for. And thanks to competetive marketry, prices can stay low and satisfactory.

 

Exactly. Laissez-Faire. You got the Average Demand curve which has to be met the Average Supply curve. You have got different type of markets: Oligopoly, Monopoly, Perfect Competition, etc. which most of them will ensure low prices. One important thing that a capitalist country always has to worry about is about monopolies gaining to much power or using the predatory pricing method to do not allow any competitors to enter the market.

 

And in communism the state owns everything, btw it's not even an ideology! It's called plan-economy!!!!!!!!!!! And something works better when you don't strive to get money, because you strive to help other people than yourself.

 

And exactly that is why your nation is more likely to face an economic collapse than mine. Again I would like to remind to Russia.

 

Suv, in theory Italgria shoutl have a stronger nation than your self. Due to the fact you're paying for most of what he gets for free.

 

Theoretically it should be that way but NS does not bear in mind of that as Suverina has already stated when asking the question of to RP this. In Real Life my nation would therefore be stronger than Suverina.

 

How should we represent it in RP?

 

Well there is no real way to represent this in a RP. Maybe in the way you write about your economies nation when you refer to it.

Edited July 29, 2006 by Italgria (see edit history)

[Mongol-Swedes]

Explaining my economic plan...

 

Much like China, I have allowed several industries to run semi-privately and allow for the possibility of innovation through competitive markets. However, unlike, say, America, my own version of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and similar organizations have real authority, and strictly enforce a pro-environmental cleanliness standard.

 

Certain industries like shipping and transportation, energy, telecommunications, etc, industries that generally only have an impact on the nation itself (with exceptions ins certain cases) have remained under state control. National volunteer labor programs, funding from the MMRTA, and free trade agreements with other nations have helped to maintaing their operational capacity.

 

And, once again, alternative energy! That means I don't have to worry about prospecting for fossil fuels, negotiating with countries that have a better supply than I, shipping it from those countries, or protecting said shipping from other nations who may be facing a fossil fuel crisis, frees up a host of funding that, once the alternative energy industry is taken care of reasonably, can be devoted to other admirable causes (social welfare, health care, etc.). Plus, a cleaner environment can snowball on these other issues, i.e. cleaner environment=less health care problems.

 

 

[Adaptus]

So, capitalism is a minimal cost system that basically runs itself and provides for any need. From the nation as a whole to the individual consumer, every need can be paid for. And thanks to competetive marketry, prices can stay low and satisfactory.

Thats what I bloody well said.

[Suverina]

I think it is very wrong of you to compare russia to Suverina. SU was a stalinist dicatature. Our market systems are worlds apart. Now, let's focus on Cuba. planned-economy. Their economy crashed when soveiet union crashed. Now they have lived through a trade-embargo from the US with almost no help from the world in 15 years!!. Cuba is leading in medicinal research and have very high standard schools. Why would the Suverinian economy collapse? Our system isn't a corrupt dictature-system.

[Italgria]

Look we are not talking about dictatorships and what they're impact is. But the impact of government control. You are a dictatorship (Father Knows Best State) and you control your economy aswell as Russia did before they had a collapse. Same Cuba. So know you are giving me the best example of why your economy would crash. You used Cuba as an example and further stated that it is living from a trade-embargo with the US. If this trade-embargo was to be broken Cubas economy would crash. Because then they will have to come up with all the materials they were receiving from the USA from their own and have to invest lots of money, what a capitalist nation would not do.

[Suverina]

Have you any idea what a trade embargo is?

[Italgria]

If you ask like that probably not? That both nations ship each other materials?

 

EDIT: Atleast I know why my nation in real life would be economically stronger than yours

Edited July 29, 2006 by Italgria (see edit history)

[Adaptus]

Wow, lets cool this one. Yous asked would would fair best didnt you Suv. In mt oppinion it would be Italgria. Nothing was said about dictators and things, Russia was not needed as an example. However why you rule your nations does not involve how much income a nation gets. it depends on your economy. What resources you can make money out of, and how you use your resourses to make your money. Thats all that counts.

[Suverina]

I am not talking income! I am talking industrial capacity!! Roar! btw, I think you are total fascist and can't see it from any other perspective...

 

@Italgria. trade-embargo is when you blockade another nations trade not allowing them to buy things from you. But the US have made other countries and companies not to sell food, medicine etc. to cuba.

[Italgria]

Ahh kk Confused it

 

Well Suv if you think i am a fascist I cant help you anymore. I am not fascist and will never be one.

[Adaptus]

fascist, belive me, I was once a strict commie. I found it in the end a dieing ideology, and relised, in the real world, people are to smart for communism these days. It's prooved it's self not to work. To be hounist, centralism or perhapse liberalism, is probabley best I belive. People dont want to pay for health care, yet they wish to keep their income. What you need is a fine ballance between both sides of the scale, which is a hard thing to do.

 

Now industrial capasity. Thats diffrent. In socialism, your industry is all government powered. So yes if you wished you could turn you're car production into tank prodution if you wished. But that would cost alot of money, due to production lines having to be changed, and it would take lots of time. Yet in capatilism, it's all handed on a plate. you can buy your tanks from anyone who sells them, and still have cars. It wouldnt take much time at all.

 

Capatilism your industry runs it's self, and you buy what you need whenever you need it. With socialism you produce it when you need also. But the only diffrence I can see is that the production would be more intense and would take up a larger space with socialism, due to you need to produce everything your people need, so it could be a little more complex and timey. But in captilism, it would not take as much space as you can buy from abroad also, and would be less intence, due to the production would be spread throughout all capitalism countries.

 

The only diffrence in my eyes lies in the money.

[Suverina]

Well, most veichle manufactures produced civilian veichles and trucks during peace time and a small amount pf armoured. Having both productions. But could quite cheap turn over to tank production. They were built that way. The flexible soviet industry made so that they won ww2.

[Social Democratic Confederation]

What the? Does the term "Lend-Lease to Russia" ring a bell? Russia's 'flexible economy' left them without the ability to produce their own tanks, thus the USA wound up lending them thousands of tanks to Russia, only because the need for a second front on Germany was so high.

 

When Germany broke the non-agression pact with soviet russia in 41 (right?), they pretty much caught russia with their pants down. Russia couldn't just switch over to tank production, it took them almost three years to switch to total tank production.

 

Without the aid of a Capitalist nation (America), the communists (Russia) would have been capitulated. The totalitarian capitalist nation (Germany) would have beat the crap out of the under-equipped (due to their 'flexible economy') socialist army.

 

If you think about it, it's kinda like Capitalism won WWII...

Edited July 30, 2006 by The Aristocratic Confederation (see edit history)

[Akiiryu]

What the? Does the term "Lend-Lease to Russia" ring a bell? Russia's 'flexible economy' left them without the ability to produce their own tanks, thus the USA wound up lending them thousands of tanks to Russia, only because the need for a second front on Germany was so high.

 

When Germany broke the non-agression pact with soviet russia in 41 (right?), they pretty much caught russia with their pants down. Russia couldn't just switch over to tank production, it took them almost three years to switch to total tank production.

 

Without the aid of a Capitalist nation (America), the communists (Russia) would have been capitulated. The totalitarian capitalist nation (Germany) would have beat the crap out of the under-equipped (due to their 'flexible economy') socialist army.

 

If you think about it, it's kinda like Capitalism won WWII...

That, my friend, is bollocks.