What economic approach would actually work?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am told that supply side thinking fails.

I am told that the free market fails.

I have seen directed economies fail.

So what works? Or is it just a matter of who is raping whom at the moment and nothing can be done?

[Gilrandir]

I am told that supply side thinking fails.

I am told that the free market fails.

I have seen directed economies fail.

So what works?

China.

[Montmorency]

I don't really know that much about it yet, abstract academic theory least of all. I've been browsing Noam Chomsky and contemporary socialist (or quasi-) sources like Current Affairs and Jacobin for the past year, and linked sources through them. People aren't kidding when they say that socialist ideology is probably the most highly elaborated ideology in extent. The best course of action to advance my knowledge might be to find and talk to local socialists face to face. Conveniently for the sake of my local political involvement, many of them likely double as community activists.

My impression now is that if the far left had to agree on one thing, it would be: radical subsidiary democracy, everything, everywhere. Government, civics, industry, family...

This civilization would involve a comprehensive cultural reeducation of humanity, and probably a dismantling of nations and private markets and even (fixed or involuntary) hierarchy. It would have to do this while increasing its capacity to tackle global issues relating to climate, resource management, and space exploitation (use a different term). I'm not sure what it could take to reach this point, or what steps would be absolutely necessary or testamentary. I'm sure thinkers have ventured answers here and there, ones that I'm unaware of to assess. It is possible to argue contrarily from human nature. It is also a fair point that appeals to "human nature" fail to account for our ignorance of the bounds of human nature(s). On the other hand, I suspect that whatever human nature is, it will become obsolete soon.

The modern left's vision is probably brand-new territory for the species. We really have tried everything else. We haven't tried the cyberdystopian libertarian/fascist syndicrat vision, but it is what we're aiming for by inertia today. I feel like all the other conservative or libertarian worlds just look like modernized variants of historical societies. The average Democrat's ideal of welfare state capitalism is unstable, since capitalism and its oligarchy are more resilient than any particular configuration of state. The New Deal was the high tide, and reproducing it woudln't resolve the world's ills; to try would be a waste of initiative.

The bottom line: I do not believe that socialists can attain their ends - how far short they fall, I can't say. I partially agree that these ends are good or worthwhile. I am convinced that most right-wing values and projects are ruinous, depraved, and worth opposing.

It would be a real coup to engineer some kind of Big Tent Marxism, coöpting morally-aligned conservatives to work beside them and help refine the ideology. Another challenge is absorbing the broader left ("liberals") and the minimally political. Count this pessimistic statist in. March to the edge of the 100 Acre Woods.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We need to get new songs, though. Music plays an important role in politics, and there need to be songs other than the Internationale, Soviet marches, or punk/industrial metal.

[Sarmatian]

That's like what my cat does, except she says "for food" at the end.

Concerning the question, I don't believe an entire new system is needed. Capitalism can work with strong government oversight. We need separation of corporations and state.

[Furunculus]

state capitalism that succeeds in not falling into corporatism?

[Montmorency]

That's like what my cat does, except she says "for food" at the end.

Concerning the question, I don't believe an entire new system is needed. Capitalism can work with strong government oversight. We need separation of corporations and state.

How can you maintain this oversight, if it's always been inadequate? Where does it come from? Do we continue to live just as we have for the past generation? How, and is it desirable?

state capitalism that succeeds in not falling into corporatism?

Like contemporary Russia and China. But it also applies to mid-century social democracies - which is our genealogy. Where are we now? It's the norm for the modern state, charged with managing at least the contours of production and enterprise, including the investment of public funds toward private (or personal) profit. State capitalism may just be inextricable from oligarchy, whether the ruler is a corporate board, a dictator, or a vetted bureaucrat.


One point: It's off the mark to consider socialism as straightforwardly a state ownership and control of, or intervention in, economic functions or institutions. If this were a proper definition, we would have to consider history as evincing an overwhelmingly socialist model for millenia, up to the modern era. But Louis XIV was no socialist. I now realize that state ownership is always merely a means to an end, democratic communal determination. (I would have known this had I done the assigned reading in the Communist Manifesto way back when.) It has been hard to swallow for someone whose instincts run towards top-down paternalistic statism, but it looks like for socialism to truly ever succeed you can't have any trace of capitalism remaining in either the culture or the economy. Capitalism will always beat socialism where given a chance, like rock beats scissors.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a sci-fi story from the 1970s that follows a prosperous Galactic Socialist Federation where, oh no! Some of the backwater colonies have degenerated into late-stage capitalism and are ruthlessly sweeping across systems in a tide of military and economic imperialism.

At least I'm never wrong to be pessimistic.

[edyzmedieval]

Most of the criticism for state oversight comes from the fact that it is very susceptible to corruption, and strong state oversight always ends up in considerable cronyism, siphoning of budgets from public projects and other issues.

[CrossLOPER]

I am told that supply side thinking fails.

I am told that the free market fails.

I have seen directed economies fail.

So what works? Or is it just a matter of who is raping whom at the moment and nothing can be done?

You can have whatever system you want, so long as you have proper oversight to make sure that the system works as its supposed to work. Some systems are easier to implement than others, usually those that function naturally with minimal guidance. Capitalism is favorable in this respect, but there is always some jacka** that wants more for less. The key is to apply just enough pressure to make sure that corruption stays down. The best way to do this is to decentralize oversight as much as possible and make sure to pay those in charge very well. It's easy to bribe one guy. It's simply not feasible to bribe everyone.

[rory_20_uk]

You can have whatever system you want, so long as you have proper oversight to make sure that the system works as its supposed to work. Some systems are easier to implement than others, usually those that function naturally with minimal guidance. Capitalism is favorable in this respect, but there is always some jacka** that wants more for less. The key is to apply just enough pressure to make sure that corruption stays down. The best way to do this is to decentralize oversight as much as possible and make sure to pay those in charge very well. It's easy to bribe one guy. It's simply not feasible to bribe everyone.

Absolutely. In my "bubble" of Pharmaceutical Medicine in the UK when we promote we are all constantly scared of the PMCPA and their powers to award fines, force recall of material (massive cost and loss of face) or just pop in for an audit - £15k a time, at least three and the company is practically paralyzed in the meantime. There are no"rules" just guidelines. Meaning if the PMCPA think you have done something wrong, you have. The only appeal is a Review Board who will triple the fine if they don't agree.

Compare that to the ICO. Utterly toothless who seem to do as little as possible and state they want to work with the offender which appears to be sending an email over with their thoughts and that's about it.

Finance appears to have a situation where not only is the money they have enough to bribe people in all sorts of ways, but also the complexity of what they do is extreme. Oh, and the processes are done to the standard of Criminal Law which as for funsies it also crosses borders makes getting anyone guilty of anything next to impossible.

I believe that if all industries had the same method of oversight as Pharma does in the UK, there would be a lot less corruption since the risk : reward would look very different.

[Sarmatian]

How can you maintain this oversight, if it's always been inadequate? Where does it come from? Do we continue to live just as we have for the past generation? How, and is it desirable?

Finding a perfect system is impossible, because it doesn't exist. Human error and human nature will always be a factor, in any system.

I don't know how to achieve strong government oversight, but then again, I'm pretty sure our ancestors a several centuries ago couldn't have imagined separation of church and state.

One of the problem in the west is that media can be used to redirect people's anger, and that media is ultimately only responsible to its owners. It should be their job to point out toxic influence of corporations in most western countries, but as media is owned by corporations , that's not going to work.

Lobbying should be made illegal. Politicians should come under more scrutiny about the source of their money, not just whether they payed taxes or not. Funding political campaigns should be illegal. The state should provide all possible candidates with a fixed amount of funds that they are able to spend on campaigns. Trying to influence a politician should be akin to trying to bribe officials and should come with heavy fines and possible jail time.

[rory_20_uk]

Making lobbying illegal merely means that other forms of non-lobbying are used. And funding political campaigns the USA as Super-PACs effortlessly got around that road block and now have almost no oversight. But yes, having a bigger audit office with more powers is probably always good.

In every job trying to influence people is what we do. And generally we all know when it is "good" influence or "bad" influence but codifying for all situations is nigh on impossible: presenting data to Politicians is good - who knows, they might learn something about the Sciences - but of course this also influences them given their normal ground state of universal ignorance. Hence an effective Audit Office with sufficient powers and autonomy is required.

The problem is - who does it report to? In the UK I'd say the Monarch to keep it out of the hands of Politicians, but elsewhere would reporting into the President really be a good idea? Just when it would need to be strongest is when such a system would be weakest. Perhaps a direct report into the most senior Law court in the land is the best approach.

[Crandar]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We need to get new songs, though. Music plays an important role in politics, and there need to be songs other than the Internationale, Soviet marches, or punk/industrial metal.

[Agent Miles]

Since this is a site about war games, I'll post the obvious. An economic model that keeps your homeland out of the dustbin of history is what works. I suppose that would be "Darwinian Economics". A nation with an economic model that is less than optimal would adapt less well to its environmental threats, i.e. competing nations' economies, and become extinct. The free market economy of the U.S. became a directed economy under central authority during WW II to survive. Agrarian Tsarist Russia of 1914 would not have survived as well as industrialized Stalinist Russia of 1941 did. Both Japan and Germany enjoy a better economy today from peaceful expansion than they ever had under autocratic domination. On a grand scale, governments fiddle with free enterprise and central planning to reach some Goldilocks zone where enough wealth is generated to pay for social, environmental and industrial expansion. Depending on the type of government, the livelihood of the citizens is encouraged to achieve this or they are simply enslaved either by regulation or literally. Total capitalism or total socialism requires total autocracy, so (mostly) free nations are left with an economic stew of competing models. Free market capitalism has the best feedback loop. If your friend saw a movie that sucked, most likely you will spend your money on a different movie. Under total central planning, everyone must watch all the movies whether they suck or not, because they have a deep moral lesson and the masses must be indoctrinated...blah, blah blah. What works is some form of capitalism so that we don't produce biplanes with jet engines and a mix of central planning authority so that the jets we do make follow safety, environmental and buyer-beware regulations.

[Husar]

I just looked for "modern communist music" on Youtube and it's not promising....

Much better to promote via association:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or maybe just an excuse for me to post a Cuban salsa video.

[Sarmatian]

Yeah, I stick to the classics.

[Montmorency]

Finance appears to have a situation where not only is the money they have enough to bribe people in all sorts of ways, but also the complexity of what they do is extreme. Oh, and the processes are done to the standard of Criminal Law which as for funsies it also crosses borders makes getting anyone guilty of anything next to impossible.

I believe that if all industries had the same method of oversight as Pharma does in the UK, there would be a lot less corruption since the risk : reward would look very different.

There exists the suggestion that corporations "as persons" be held accountable to criminal law, possibly including the death penalty. One problem is that the individuals involved still have the opportunity to scatter and continue their bad behavior elsewhere.

If corporations were democratically built and controlled by the whole body of their workers, each individual would have a clearer liability and a corporate criminal penalty would impinge on the whole body responsible. If the offense was a small conspiracy concealed from oversight, then normal criminal statutes can also still apply (whereas the contemporary centralized structure gives executives the dodge that someone below them must have been at fault).

And I wonder just how British pharmaceuticals compare to others in "corruption". If they're big enough, then can't limited fines be accounted for as but one more operating cost, as long as the profits of rule-breaking exceed the costs? That seems to be the case across industries and countries. Cost-benefit analysis is supposed to estimate the costs and the benefits separately for each affected party, not just the corporation; forcing the inclusion of negative externalities on environment and society seems like a worthy approach.

Finding a perfect system is impossible, because it doesn't exist. Human error and human nature will always be a factor, in any system.

I don't know how to achieve strong government oversight, but then again, I'm pretty sure our ancestors a several centuries ago couldn't have imagined separation of church and state.

One of the problem in the west is that media can be used to redirect people's anger, and that media is ultimately only responsible to its owners. It should be their job to point out toxic influence of corporations in most western countries, but as media is owned by corporations , that's not going to work.

Lobbying should be made illegal. Politicians should come under more scrutiny about the source of their money, not just whether they payed taxes or not. Funding political campaigns should be illegal. The state should provide all possible candidates with a fixed amount of funds that they are able to spend on campaigns. Trying to influence a politician should be akin to trying to bribe officials and should come with heavy fines and possible jail time.

Maybe not perfect, but what if it has a 'baked-in' tendency?

Lobbying: you need a system to allow people to voice their concerns and desires. Right now this is channeled through lobbying and advocacy groups, many of which aren't all that rich. And they're specialized, while it's difficult for any one person to have a clear position on all the possible issues. That could be separated into two difficulties then, but they're equally important. How would, for example, the government hear about the importance of various environmental issues beyond at best a popular mandate not to Saruman everything?

Influence: there would be absolutely no recourse or contact with politicians once they have been elected? I'm not sure eliminating communication between the elected and the electorate is a good idea. Rather than trying to seal off the leadership from the public, maybe putting more of the public in leadership and oversight roles...

Since this is a site about war games, I'll post the obvious. An economic model that keeps your homeland out of the dustbin of history is what works. I suppose that would be "Darwinian Economics". A nation with an economic model that is less than optimal would adapt less well to its environmental threats, i.e. competing nations' economies, and become extinct.

It's actually correct, I think, to say that economic and political forms as a rule are determined not by individuals but by physical factors like geography and technology (and you may add culture, though calling it physical is tendentious). In short, the economic system of any one time and place tends towards the one that is most effective or productive given other constraints. So agrarian feudalism works with one set of the variables, venture commercial oligarchy in another, and so on - an unstable equilibrium, since the variables are always shifting. Achieving socialism (which doesn't have to mean Leninist central planning) would somehow require breaking with history, if socialism doesn't turn out to simply be the natural outcome of other political, economic, social and technological trends into the future.

[Sarmatian]

Maybe not perfect, but what if it has a 'baked-in' tendency?

Lobbying: you need a system to allow people to voice their concerns and desires. Right now this is channeled through lobbying and advocacy groups, many of which aren't all that rich. And they're specialized, while it's difficult for any one person to have a clear position on all the possible issues. That could be separated into two difficulties then, but they're equally important. How would, for example, the government hear about the importance of various environmental issues beyond at best a popular mandate not to Saruman everything?

Yeah, but in that example, who's winning? It's in almost everyone best interest to protect the environment, while in the interest of only handful of people to scale back protective measures. It should be a non issue, and yet it is a huge one.

Not that I disagree that there should be a system for people to voice their concerns, it's just that lobbying (especially payed) isn't achieving that. Even if we disregard the money, lobbying is really about yelling the strongest. A good cause and wide support is absolutely optional.

Influence: there would be absolutely no recourse or contact with politicians once they have been elected? I'm not sure eliminating communication between the elected and the electorate is a good idea. Rather than trying to seal off the leadership from the public, maybe putting more of the public in leadership and oversight roles...

I didn't mean literally any. It was a tie in to throwing money at politicians to make your problems go away. I was just throwing ideas out there.

But considering what is practical and achievable, first and foremost -
Payed lobbying should be made illegal.
Campaign donations should be illegal - all receive the same amount for campaign. What you don't spend you have to give back. No loopholes a la Super PACs. In theory you could allow some donations, but it has to come from a person, not corporation and would be capped at a really small amount.
Politicians should be forced to be more transparent with their money.
There should be serious legal and financial consequences to breaking any of those rules.

That way, politicians won't be beholden to corporate interests before they even take office, and when they do, it would be harder and much more risky to go that route.

[Beskar]

In the future, our robot overlords will decide for us.

[Pannonian]

Yeah, but in that example, who's winning? It's in almost everyone best interest to protect the environment, while in the interest of only handful of people to scale back protective measures. It should be a non issue, and yet it is a huge one.

The neoliberal right has managed to get a lock on the language and media of democracy, framing the interests of the few as the natural consequence of freedom and democracy. In the UK, politics can be divided into pre-Thatcher and post-Thatcher because of this, her greatest legacy. Great in terms of influence, rather than great in terms of benefiting the country. Any attempt to address this should recognise this. The third way attempted to use this language to convey social democratic government. In the UK, mostly due to Iraq, there has been a reaction against this and a retreat back to pre-Thatcher socialist language. But as the Labour leadership's stance on Brexit shows, I'm not sure that language can adequately formulate a modern approach to modern problems.

On the success of economic approaches: the answer is obviously a mixed economy, as different approaches work best for different environments. My preference is to support local suppliers as much as possible, if only to reduce fuel usage. One added benefit is that small businesses are less apt to stow away their profits overseas, which means a greater part of their economy can be effectively taxed.

[rory_20_uk]

There exists the suggestion that corporations "as persons" be held accountable to criminal law, possibly including the death penalty. One problem is that the individuals involved still have the opportunity to scatter and continue their bad behavior elsewhere.

If corporations were democratically built and controlled by the whole body of their workers, each individual would have a clearer liability and a corporate criminal penalty would impinge on the whole body responsible. If the offense was a small conspiracy concealed from oversight, then normal criminal statutes can also still apply (whereas the contemporary centralized structure gives executives the dodge that someone below them must have been at fault).

And I wonder just how British pharmaceuticals compare to others in "corruption". If they're big enough, then can't limited fines be accounted for as but one more operating cost, as long as the profits of rule-breaking exceed the costs? That seems to be the case across industries and countries. Cost-benefit analysis is supposed to estimate the costs and the benefits separately for each affected party, not just the corporation; forcing the inclusion of negative externalities on environment and society seems like a worthy approach.

If UK affiliate Pharma companies get in enough trouble, there is a track record of the entire senior management team getting sacked and replaced. Not parachuted out. Not paid off. But booted en masse. That sort of thing helps ensure senior interest on doing the right thing if only to keep their own career. If you keep breaking the rules, the PMCPA passes you over to the MHRA and there the pain really starts. They can send people to jail for jeopardizing patient safety, and even take away the Market Authority of a drug, or force companies to supply it to everyone for free. And the agencies talk - if the MHRA is not happy expect the EMA and especially the FDA to also take an interest enter the billion dollar fines.

I think that in the USA things are significantly different since there is no NHS and power is a lot more with Doctors. In the UK a company could be frozen out of the entire market for one or all of their drugs in essence for ever if that was decided. In the USA I don't think that this is possible - and there is so much more money in the system and more ways of bribing the players that they probably do in more cases accept the risk.

I don't for one minute think that those in the Industry are more honest or "nice" they just know that problems are generally quickly detected, and that fines are in essence infinite.

[Gilrandir]

The free market economy of the U.S. became a directed economy under central authority during WW II to survive. Agrarian Tsarist Russia of 1914 would not have survived as well as industrialized Stalinist Russia of 1941 did.

And industrialized France didn't survive. Surviving can be explained by more than the type of economy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I think that in the USA things are significantly different since there is no NHS and power is a lot more with Doctors. In the UK a company could be frozen out of the entire market for one or all of their drugs in essence for ever if that was decided. In the USA I don't think that this is possible - and there is so much more money in the system and more ways of bribing the players that they probably do in more cases accept the risk.

Their is no direct mechanism for the removal of an entire top management team in such a fashion here in the USA. It would take an action/series of actions that were so morally or financially scandalous that stockholders demanded a special meeting of the board/shareholders and forced the resignations or firing of that top management team. Even then, unless the specific "we owe you nothing because of X condition" clauses in their contracts were triggered, they would receive whatever severance payments had be contracted.

[Agent Miles]

And industrialized France didn't survive. Surviving can be explained by more than the type of economy.

France used its industry to build the obsolete Maginot Line. Their economy was wasted producing something that was useless.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

France used its industry to build the obsolete Maginot Line. Their economy was wasted producing something that was useless.

It was expensive, and arguably other military preparation might have been better, but the Maginot line did, as intended, channel German effort Northward forcing them to face the low countries first and allow time for allied armies to position themselves to advantage.

The French screwed the pooch on their evaluation of the Ardennes, but the Maginot fulfilled its strategic purpose.

[Gilrandir]

France used its industry to build the obsolete Maginot Line. Their economy was wasted producing something that was useless.

So the USSR in 1941 used its industry satisfactorily producing top notch military equipment and creating effective defense infrastructure? Why then did the Soviet troops roll back for a copule of years?

[Pannonian]

So the USSR in 1941 used its industry satisfactorily producing top notch military equipment and creating effective defense infrastructure? Why then did the Soviet troops roll back for a copule of years?

Problems at the top. The Soviet military were effective even in the early years at mauling the German military. Unfortunately issues with command and strategy meant they lost strategically even whilst inflicting Pyrrhic losses on the Germans. Once these were ironed out, the Soviets, with similar levels of losses as earlier (barring the kessels), consistently made strategic gains whilst avoiding irretrievable strategic disasters.

[Gilrandir]

Problems at the top. The Soviet military were effective even in the early years at mauling the German military. Unfortunately issues with command and strategy meant they lost strategically even whilst inflicting Pyrrhic losses on the Germans. Once these were ironed out, the Soviets, with similar levels of losses as earlier (barring the kessels), consistently made strategic gains whilst avoiding irretrievable strategic disasters.

I don't completely agree. In 1941 Soviet prisoners of war numbered hundred of thousands which can't be explained by poor command only. We won't speculate on the reluctance of many people to fight for the country whose internal policy was suppressive. But poor weaponry is one more factor to be considered as responsible for the situation at the fronts. The best Soviet tanks T-34 weren't numerous, same true about the planes, most infantry were armed with Mosin rifles surviving from WWI and earlier, why, the Soviet army even had cavalry troops. The Phyrric losses Germans started to have at the and of autumn of 1941, but even so Germans were capable of a major offensive in 1942 which was checked at Stalingrad, again in late autumn. Thus it took the USSR about two years to furnish the troops with adequate arms which yielded results at Kursk and later. In 1941 the fruits of industrialization were deplorable.

[Strike For The South]

You are worried about systems when you should be worried about issues.

[Husar]

You are worried about systems when you should be worried about issues.

Don't systems cause issues and aren't issues fixed by changing the system?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't completely agree. In 1941 Soviet prisoners of war numbered hundred of thousands which can't be explained by poor command only. We won't speculate on the reluctance of many people to fight for the country whose internal policy was suppressive. But poor weaponry is one more factor to be considered as responsible for the situation at the fronts. The best Soviet tanks T-34 weren't numerous, same true about the planes, most infantry were armed with Mosin rifles surviving from WWI and earlier, why, the Soviet army even had cavalry troops. The Phyrric losses Germans started to have at the and of autumn of 1941, but even so Germans were capable of a major offensive in 1942 which was checked at Stalingrad, again in late autumn. Thus it took the USSR about two years to furnish the troops with adequate arms which yielded results at Kursk and later. In 1941 the fruits of industrialization were deplorable.

Russian small arms were adequate in all categories (the moisin was no worse than the Gewehrs used by the Germans. Russian SMGs and LMGs, and crew MGs were of comparable performance -- though doctrinally the Germans deployed them more frequently and more organically at the section/platoon level). Russian tanks in 1941, aside from the fairly new/rare t-34 and KV series, were inferior to those fielded by the Axis, but only marginally (The BT-7 and T-28 and T-26 tanks were not notably outgunned by the PZ IIs. early Pz IIIs, and Czech tanks that formed the bulk of the Heer and SS tank forces, though German repair and recovery doctrine was better). Russian mortars were as good or more so than their German counterparts. Artillery was about on par.

Training and doctrine lagged significantly more. Also, as noted by others, the Soviet command structure had been gutted and the absence of Tsuchevsky alone kept the Russians in the infantry/cavalry tank doctrine far too long. That was still influencing things n 1941, even though the purge was years past. The only really outdated equipment class was air forces, wherein the Russians did NOT have enough of their modern designs in the field putting them at a qualitative disadvantage as well as doctrinal disadvantage.

The Sovs also had way too much of their armor and air forces forward deployed for a proper defense in depth (some argue that a Soviet 1942 attack was being prepared and caught too much too far forward). Stalin and the high command were strategically surprised by the assault -- Stalin had been lulled. It was the blitzkrieg's ability to punch holes in the Soviet formations and attack logistic and command nodes that left the relatively inflexible Soviet military of 1941 in such a bad way. Many of them fought bravely, sometimes even launching charges with fixed bayonets and no bullets because supplies had been cut off so thoroughly.