Economics How do we go about rebuilding the Industrial Might of the West?

[Simonbob]

So again you are engaged in a false dichotomy of big vs small government instead of focusing on competent vs incompetent government. If you have a competent government, collapse is averted.

What does Govenment do, I ask you? What do we need Govenmet for?

Strong Govenment? I don't really know what you mean. All I know, is every time I see somebody trying to fix something in Australia, the thing that stops them, more than anything else, is our Govenment.



If you want to be a slave, that's fine. You should really choose a master who cares about you, though.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Honestly Advocating for the good ol trades, bringing back trade schools, cutting government regulation (and yes that does mean cutting government "Protections" as well. The weaker the government the better.) Problem is corporations like amazon and facebook won't allow it. They enjoy having stunted competition.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I honestly do not think America is at that point, I think we are at the end of the republic not the end of the empire. This is still in many ways sad but western civilization will survive as will America its just that the next 80 years or so will suck absolute balls

A zombie is not considered alive. Just because our civilization doesin't end in a nuclear explosion doesin't mean it will be alive. Nearly all of the countries we think of when we romantacize them are countries of a bigone era. Even though the names have stayed the same. Even the countries that long replaced them were replaced. (Whether somthing of any value replaces it or not only time will tell, but make no Mistake. America dies with the Republic.

 

[Doomsought]

1) dump funding military funding into nanoscale vacuum transistors, unlike normal transistors they do not require rare earth elements, only common conductive metals and a substrate.

2)Create a right to freedom from unnecessary government interference in life and livelihood, place constitutional limits on regulations and licenses. Regulations must prevent and order of magnatude more harm than they cost, and licenses can only be manded by law when there is an immanent threat of death from someone performing the act without the skills guaranteed by the license.

 

[Bassoe]

To Re-Industrialise?

Just shut most of the Govenment down. No Envoromental Agencies, you just need cops and army, not much more.

There's thousands of people doing only one thing, making it hard to start or run a company, and the best way to get past them, is be big enough to bribe a Congress critter to change laws to help you, and cripple smaller competion.

So, the only way to fix it, is not to regulate it in the first place. Fire them all.



Then, in 10 years or so, we restart said agencies, at 1% of their current sizes. That'll start fixing the other side of the problem.

That's bush-era bullshit. Corporations claim that economic prosperity is dependent upon letting them do whatsoever they like, but when they're allowed to assume the authority they want, the results are always the same, the fuck over everyone who isn't their leadership. The inevitable consequences of modern 'libertarianism', aka, 'weaken anything that could stop the corporations from taking over everything and ruling as feudal lords'is the corporations from taking over everything and ruling as feudal lords. Recognize the race-to-the-bottom and create a goverment strong enough to stand against it or be reduced to serfhood. There's a middle ground between 'soviet union' and 'corporations can do anything they like' and if you don't enforce otherwise, you'll end up living in a soviet-tier dystopia ruled by a single absolutist faction anyway.

• Maintain minimal standards of worker pay and safety so that corporations can't compete by lowering them.
• Prevent the formation of and break up preexisting monopolies.
• Tax the successful corporations sufficiently that, though they absolutely can be rewarded with profit for their success, the goverment also has enough money to protect its citizens besides the successful corporate executives.
• Keep corporations from taking people's rights. If you have the money, they can't prevent you from buying their products, they cannot prevent you from using their products how you like once you own it, and they can't refuse to employ you on ideological grounds.
• Treat attempted corruption of the regulating system as what it is, treasonous subversion and persecute it as such by any means necessary.
• Recognize that because of the above, your businesses and the value of your labor cannot compete on equal grounds with foreign businesses and the value of foreign who don't have such self-inflicted limitations. Consequentially, tax said foreign businesses and labor sufficiently to make up the difference if they want to operate in your countries. If you're a large enough potential market, they'll accept it as the cost of doing business with you.

These six steps won't spontaneously transform you into the soviet union, but not executing them essentially will, only instead of an overreaching goverment commanding the entirety of civilization, it'll be an overreaching corporate monopoly.

Moderate Hero said it best, anti-communist propaganda won't work when everything it claims communism will do, corporatism is already doing or very obviously planning on doing as soon as it thinks it can get away with it.

The best example I can think of is that of car ownership. So long as car ownership is within reach of most people they will have a stake in defending capitalism as it is their future ownership that is being called into question, however if companies continue pushing for rent and subscriptions in every walk of life they can vs pay for product and manage to change society to not expect to own many physical assets or software then with ownership being though of as out of reach I would expect the calculus to change and move politics drastically leftwards. E.g. "That car will never be mine anyways, so why should I care if cars get nationalized, at least the rentier parasites wont be sucking us dry now."

Traditionally, the arguments against communism were 'it'll make you into a serf with no rights whose entire labor surplus is absorbed merely to break even'. These were entirely valid arguments, insofar as communism actually did those things. However, nowadays, you'd be just as likely to find the ideology of 'all property will be held in common by a few unelected tyrants who dole it out to peasants so the peasants can use it to labor for said tyrants, while said peasants are banned from using it for thoughtcrimes, which leads to the peasants being kicked out of society as a whole and starving' advocated for by neoliberal corporatists as communists. The only difference between the society Schwab and his buddies want and stalinist communism being that under communism, bourgeoisie parasites like Schwab would be rounded up and shot and right now, that's looking like a real point in communism's favor. If your ideology has produced identical results to those you use as a bogeyman to demonize anyone against it, why should people follow it?

 

[Simonbob]

Traditionally, the arguments against communism were 'it'll make you into a serf with no rights whose entire labor surplus is absorbed merely to break even'. These were entirely valid arguments, insofar as communism actually did those things. However, nowadays, you'd be just as likely to find the ideology of 'all property will be held in common by a few unelected tyrants who dole it out to peasants so the peasants can use it to labor for said tyrants, while said peasants are banned from using it for thoughtcrimes, which leads to the peasants being kicked out of society as a whole and starving' advocated for by neoliberal corporatists as communists. The only difference between the society Schwab and his buddies want and stalinist communism being that under communism, bourgeoisie parasites like Schwab would be rounded up and shot and right now, that's looking like a real point in communism's favor. If your ideology has produced identical results to those you use as a bogeyman to demonize anyone against it, why should people follow it?

..... So, communists run our countries.

Why do you blame anything, or anybody, else? They, reguardless of what they say they are, act entirely the same as commies, so they are commies.


That's the inevitatable result of strong govenment. It's run by the powerful, for the powerful. Same with any concentration of power.


I'll say it again. If you want to be a slave, go ahead. Just pick a master who will actually look after you.

 

[Scottty]

Also, if possible, make a law that effectively bans left wing movements from nationalising them again. Because, let's be honest, this is where the trouble all started.

Well you'd have to do more than just "make a law" - otherwise a future leftist government could repeal it - or more likely, simply ignore it.

But you've also got to protect in some way against the other extreme - the people who run a privately owned business deciding that they can make much more money, money, money if they fire all their American workers and move the factories to Bulgaria.

Key industries - like steel - should be under some degree of state control.

 

[Marduk]

Well you'd have to do more than just "make a law" - otherwise a future leftist government could repeal it - or more likely, simply ignore it.

But you've also got to protect in some way against the other extreme - the people who run a privately owned business deciding that they can make much more money, money, money if they fire all their American workers and move the factories to Bulgaria.

Key industries - like steel - should be under some degree of state control.

Here's how Japan avoided that problem, among other quirks of their setup that make them so successful in manufacturing sector.

Simple Truths of Japanese Manufacturing

In the past few years many observers have offered explanations for the enormous success of Japanese manufacturers. Some analysts trace Japan’s impressive industrial performance to unique cultural and historical factors, while others point to farseeing and shrewd public policies to promote...

hbr.org

Reality 5: Unique capital structure.

The principal stockholders of Japanese companies are normally other companies. Individuals hold less than 10% of the stock in 97% of the companies listed on the first section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, which includes the 1,005 largest publicly traded companies in Japan.4 Suppliers and customers are apt to be more interested in having the company in which they own stock produce a high level of output at a low price than in maximizing its operating profits by producing a lower output at a higher price. Those suppliers and customers, in other words, generally prefer to maximize the operating profits of their own businesses rather than the operating profits of the company in which they own stock.


Similarly, a bank owning stock in one of its customers may prefer to see the customer expand by buying more equipment and increasing its bank debt, rather than by hiring more workers, even if the latter course would be more profitable for the company. The bank, in this case, is primarily interested in its own operating profits.


It seems plausible that in many markets these patterns of interlocking directorships improve the allocation of resources. In some respects companies with interlocking directorships can mimic the resource allocation decisions of vertically integrated companies. In markets not perfectly competitive, vertically integrated companies, by using the true cost of resources rather than market prices to make production decisions, are often more efficient than their competitors.

 

[Simonbob]

Key industries - like steel - should be under some degree of state control.

Or, you just make it a tariff. Then, any company in that area will benifit, but no specific company will benifit.