The Economist ~ Beware the Spectre of Nationalisation!
Day 841, 12:52
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Spite313
Please help the Economist: Vote and Subscribe
Dear friends,
I want to dispel a few myths presented in the media about nationalisation. It seems that some people feel the need to make the whole thing sound very Soviet-like, with fatcats being sent into exile and grey-suited bureaucrats being marched into factories to start standardising everything. Sensationalism aside, nationalisation is the oldest and most used tool in the book. In this article I hope to explain how this tool has been used for a dozen versatile tasks, and how even in the future it will provide the backbone of our national defence policy, as well as a significant contributor to national income.
Nationalised Industry today
In June/July last year, the UK military underwent significant reform. Based on lessons learned during the whole Corps fiasco (where the UK military was briefly privatised) military communes began to spring up. Firstly we had Paratrooper companies, which were a mix of Q3 weapons/iron and Q1 weapons, and provided guns for our soldiers, who worked for minimum wage. Later the Royal Navy also joined this program, and the modern military was born. Wages, distribution and shift cycles have all changed since then, but the same basic theme is there.
Currently over half the voting population either works in nationalised companies, or relies on them for supply and defence. The effect this has on the marketplace is twofold- firstly it alleviates pressure on the market during war/peacetime by ensuring a constant supply of weapons to the military. Secondly it ensures wage stability by allowing the government to regulate the size of the workforce, and stockpile goods during recession to soak up excess productivity.
Weapons & Tickets
There are more weapons companies than all other companies put together, and this is for two reasons. Firstly because, apart from food, weapons are the only staple consumable good we have. RM, gifts, tickets and houses are all bought rarely. Secondly because guns are necessary for warfare, and warfare is the most common consumer of goods in the world, increasing demand for everything. From a Keynesian perspective, it is money flow which allows the economy to keep turning over, and war generates money flow.
Weapons and tickets are two major nationalised industries. This is for very simple reason- individuals do not have the income potential to match their damage potential. Most soldiers wage is too small to be able to provide the guns they need to reach their maximum damage. This is partly due to tax, partly due to profits held by the General Manager. A nationalised company is there for one purpose- to harness productivity directly. Profit in a nationalised economy is not based on GBP or gold, but on products made. The goal is to produce and use as many weapons and tickets as possible.
The Future of Nationalised Industry
The future of this economic tool is murky, with V2 lurking over the horizon. However the odds are that the UK will continue to own nationalised companies into the distant future. The main changes will come with variations introduced in V2 in weapons, into several different forms of weapon. Despite all of this, the need will still be there for directly produced weaponry for the military, and the key will be learning to adapt to the new system as quickly as possible.
In between now and V2 the UK faces another challenge. For whatever reason, the admins have made no effort to slow the economic decline we are seeing across all nations at the present time. Under-consumption of goods in the private sector is pulling the UK and the world to a standstill. Those operating Q1 and Q2 companies have seen wages and prices fall to the point where the amount they make in gold is almost insignificant. The return on investment is pitifully low. Many solutions exist to this problem. Those working in communes don’t have to worry, with their wages being paid in products as always. Similarly those working in productivity co-operatives* would also be unaffected.
*a new concept in development
Arguments against nationalisation
I hope to address here a number of the key arguments against nationalisation, and the underlying fallacy of these arguments.
=Nationalisation represents a loss of fun for company owners
Not true- most nationalised companies do not sell to the marketplace. In fact they withdraw labour and productivity which would otherwise have driven down prices.
Q1 companies suffer under nationalisation
Due to the markets being screwed by poor economic models given to us by the admins, Q1 is completely unprofitable. This is not the fault of the ordinary business owner, but the system itself. Although it is possible to make money at all levels, the majority of business owners don’t succeed. Nationalisation has no effect on these companies.
Not everyone wants to work for the government!
This is true. However, consider it from this perspective. Mostly people don’t want to work for the government because they can make more money working in the private sector. However at the minute that is patently not true for anyone below skill 7. Looking at the job market you would be better off in terms of income working in a navy company, where your wage covers food and guns are provided, then trying to budget on the open market. Both options are there though- we have a mixed economy.
Nationalised business is inefficient and costly!
A common RL argument against nationalisation, this simply doesn’t hold true in erep. Nationalised businesses are managed with the utmost professionalism for the good of all citizens. Very soon we will be setting up a Ministry dedicated to producing goods for profitable export. This Ministry of Profit will have the added bonus of improving our balance of trade and reducing the deficit we are generating in the classic Keynesian formula for measurement of consumption.
You’re all communists!
Not true. I myself have owned several business interests and plan to own more in the near future. However nationalisation is not a political philosophy but is rather an economic tool. Unlike many socialists I don’t see it as an end in itself, but rather as a means to an end. My goal is a stable market, with stable productivity and wages which are sufficiently distinguished to represent the differing value of skilled labour. It is silly that a worker with 1, 2 or 3 skill is paid almost the same. The current system is broken, and we must offer citizens an alternative or risk our player retention.
Conclusion- Evil Spectre or a common tool?
Many times nationalisation and socialism in general is portrayed by some scaremongers as the end of the world as we know it. When commune-style military companies were first established many on the right hailed it as a total disaster. Regulation of all markets has been undertaken successfully by private individuals and governments to the benefit of citizens and businesses alike.
Nationalisation isn’t an ideology, or belief system. It’s simply a tool for economists to help mitigate market forces and provide stability. It is as important to economics as newspapers are to politics, and just as politically neutral. In itself, nationalisation of industry represents nothing more than government support in vulnerable sectors.
Nothing to be afraid of...
Inb4trolls
Don't forget to check out and subsribe to these government papers to keep up to date with country's goings on:
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Home Affairs
National Newspaper Association
Dear friends,
I want to dispel a few myths presented in the media about nationalisation. It seems that some people feel the need to make the whole thing sound very Soviet-like, with fatcats being sent into exile and grey-suited bureaucrats being marched into factories to start standardising everything. Sensationalism aside, nationalisation is the oldest and most used tool in the book. In this article I hope to explain how this tool has been used for a dozen versatile tasks, and how even in the future it will provide the backbone of our national defence policy, as well as a significant contributor to national income.
Nationalised Industry today
In June/July last year, the UK military underwent significant reform. Based on lessons learned during the whole Corps fiasco (where the UK military was briefly privatised) military communes began to spring up. Firstly we had Paratrooper companies, which were a mix of Q3 weapons/iron and Q1 weapons, and provided guns for our soldiers, who worked for minimum wage. Later the Royal Navy also joined this program, and the modern military was born. Wages, distribution and shift cycles have all changed since then, but the same basic theme is there.
Currently over half the voting population either works in nationalised companies, or relies on them for supply and defence. The effect this has on the marketplace is twofold- firstly it alleviates pressure on the market during war/peacetime by ensuring a constant supply of weapons to the military. Secondly it ensures wage stability by allowing the government to regulate the size of the workforce, and stockpile goods during recession to soak up excess productivity.
Weapons & Tickets
There are more weapons companies than all other companies put together, and this is for two reasons. Firstly because, apart from food, weapons are the only staple consumable good we have. RM, gifts, tickets and houses are all bought rarely. Secondly because guns are necessary for warfare, and warfare is the most common consumer of goods in the world, increasing demand for everything. From a Keynesian perspective, it is money flow which allows the economy to keep turning over, and war generates money flow.
Weapons and tickets are two major nationalised industries. This is for very simple reason- individuals do not have the income potential to match their damage potential. Most soldiers wage is too small to be able to provide the guns they need to reach their maximum damage. This is partly due to tax, partly due to profits held by the General Manager. A nationalised company is there for one purpose- to harness productivity directly. Profit in a nationalised economy is not based on GBP or gold, but on products made. The goal is to produce and use as many weapons and tickets as possible.
The Future of Nationalised Industry
The future of this economic tool is murky, with V2 lurking over the horizon. However the odds are that the UK will continue to own nationalised companies into the distant future. The main changes will come with variations introduced in V2 in weapons, into several different forms of weapon. Despite all of this, the need will still be there for directly produced weaponry for the military, and the key will be learning to adapt to the new system as quickly as possible.
In between now and V2 the UK faces another challenge. For whatever reason, the admins have made no effort to slow the economic decline we are seeing across all nations at the present time. Under-consumption of goods in the private sector is pulling the UK and the world to a standstill. Those operating Q1 and Q2 companies have seen wages and prices fall to the point where the amount they make in gold is almost insignificant. The return on investment is pitifully low. Many solutions exist to this problem. Those working in communes don’t have to worry, with their wages being paid in products as always. Similarly those working in productivity co-operatives* would also be unaffected.
*a new concept in development
Arguments against nationalisation
I hope to address here a number of the key arguments against nationalisation, and the underlying fallacy of these arguments.
=Nationalisation represents a loss of fun for company owners
Not true- most nationalised companies do not sell to the marketplace. In fact they withdraw labour and productivity which would otherwise have driven down prices.
Q1 companies suffer under nationalisation
Due to the markets being screwed by poor economic models given to us by the admins, Q1 is completely unprofitable. This is not the fault of the ordinary business owner, but the system itself. Although it is possible to make money at all levels, the majority of business owners don’t succeed. Nationalisation has no effect on these companies.
Not everyone wants to work for the government!
This is true. However, consider it from this perspective. Mostly people don’t want to work for the government because they can make more money working in the private sector. However at the minute that is patently not true for anyone below skill 7. Looking at the job market you would be better off in terms of income working in a navy company, where your wage covers food and guns are provided, then trying to budget on the open market. Both options are there though- we have a mixed economy.
Nationalised business is inefficient and costly!
A common RL argument against nationalisation, this simply doesn’t hold true in erep. Nationalised businesses are managed with the utmost professionalism for the good of all citizens. Very soon we will be setting up a Ministry dedicated to producing goods for profitable export. This Ministry of Profit will have the added bonus of improving our balance of trade and reducing the deficit we are generating in the classic Keynesian formula for measurement of consumption.
You’re all communists!
Not true. I myself have owned several business interests and plan to own more in the near future. However nationalisation is not a political philosophy but is rather an economic tool. Unlike many socialists I don’t see it as an end in itself, but rather as a means to an end. My goal is a stable market, with stable productivity and wages which are sufficiently distinguished to represent the differing value of skilled labour. It is silly that a worker with 1, 2 or 3 skill is paid almost the same. The current system is broken, and we must offer citizens an alternative or risk our player retention.
Conclusion- Evil Spectre or a common tool?
Many times nationalisation and socialism in general is portrayed by some scaremongers as the end of the world as we know it. When commune-style military companies were first established many on the right hailed it as a total disaster. Regulation of all markets has been undertaken successfully by private individuals and governments to the benefit of citizens and businesses alike.
Nationalisation isn’t an ideology, or belief system. It’s simply a tool for economists to help mitigate market forces and provide stability. It is as important to economics as newspapers are to politics, and just as politically neutral. In itself, nationalisation of industry represents nothing more than government support in vulnerable sectors.
Nothing to be afraid of...
Inb4trolls
Don't forget to check out and subsribe to these government papers to keep up to date with country's goings on:
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Home Affairs
National Newspaper Association
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Pertamaxxx
http://www.erepublik.com/en/company/sinohousing-196408" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/company/sino[..]96408
This article is voteworthy.
[removed]
commie!
Nationalisation makes less profit...
Your articles always provide entertainment for a few minutes... 🙂
@SareDroz: Fail, he covers this in the article
very nice article 🙂
Thanks for nice article!
NPP
voted for truth
I hereby declare this article "Commie approved"!
Let's vote Dischmcds's lies out of top 5!
Wow, HASN'T been assassinated yet?
I make 1 G per day in Brazil, working for the Military, and training.
How many UKers can say the same?
Since you've just left 2 terms as President that says a lot about your abilities 😉
and your 16.8 skill 😛
No one was complaining about the economy when I was in office, because they all went into the military.
Like they were told.
Such is what someone who actually leads does, instead of sitting on the sidelines.
Right Iain?
look, the key to state enterprises is that they produce with gbp (which is very cheap for the government) and sell for gold (exports) so that they can convert gbp to gold by other means than the mm, and more efficiently.
they also pay wages (purchasing power) without selling any goods in the local market, which is good for what you call "overproductivity".
furthermore the workers get a chance to sell their labor for a higher price in high quality goods (more wage per productivity) therefore can buy more q1 goods, which is good for the avarage joe you ve been talking about. he can sell his goods, finally.
it is good for the country as a whole, because the best you can do is producing rolex (q5) and exporting, and importing (or buying from the avarage joe) lots of adidas made in vietnam (q1)
and you getting 1 gold per day. you have an extremely high skill and anyone who has a slight idea about the game economics knows that a country with all raw materials will always be richer because their balance of trade is always better.
Voted
>so that they can convert gbp to gold by other means than the mm
And the crux in your "scheme" comes out. Your benchmark is set too high, meaning your "exporting" schemes will shit, and you'll just be wasting money.
The rest of that was p much nothing. Thank you, drive thru, come again.
You obviously understand nothing about the effect of benchmark values on high Q export sales Dish. The only importance of the benchmark is to create price stability by remaining constant. Yes there is a bunching up of wages in low skills, but unless nationalised high-Q export companies hire utter noobs (which would be cruel) then it won't have any effect at all/.
How about everyone join the military, less over production plus wages rise due to the lack of workers. Wages and prices both increase and the economy stars to grow again.
i m deleting the reply to dish because he doesn t deserve an answer.
@george norfolk:
the problem with everyone working in q1 manu factories is that their productivity becomes insignificant.
a welfare society is which produces high quality products and exports and consumes lots of low quality products.
it takes a 5.55 skill manu worker to produce 5 q1's per day and that doesn t include iron (which is almost 50% of a q1 weapon) let alone profit. so he can t consume that much.
but if the same guy works in a q5 factory and sells his labor (and more wellness) he might get a chance to consume 5 q1's alone.
so export high quality, import lots of low quality. that s the best way in erep. instead of importing, we can consume the "avarege joe"s local products too.
I agree Iain. In theory, nation functioning as a hive, working in fully nationalised economy, would be the most efficient one (comparing to its relative numbers, skills, resources, etc) in this game.
Naturally, that would be impossible in practise. But the closer one gets to it, the better. We have seen that comune type of business adds to the overall successfulness of the entity behind it, be it some small paramilitary unit, or the entire official government army.
Though that stands for the current module maybe. We will see what does the "70% change" really means when v2 comes out.
Btw its funny for me, being from an ex socialist state, to see how the public in the West gets all nervous when the term like "Nationalisation" comes up. Like somebody mentioned a boogyman or something ;_;
Those worker skill 0 government companies are necessary, that's all I know.
tl;dr, will later though 🙂
Good article......voted 🙂
Keers wants to nationalise your children!
Run. Run, for your life!
Dishmcds >>> Keers - is a twit.
With UK's Finest on your side what more could you want 😛
pro article 😃
nice article
voted. interesting and yet, informative at the same time.
There is a spectre haunting the eUK. The spectre of nationalisation!
Amidoinitrite?
if your program succeeds, you will create a worker shortage, demand for workers will go up, GM's that usually handle business like "I will offer more than that!" will go over their heads and go bankrupt after a while, profits of q3+ companies will go down on expense of national production, investors will move out, creating a heaven for one day workers (companies) like myself which will be able, due to higher prices of products, to offer 50% or more salaries than what you national project gives, and we/they can exploit it while it lasts.
Idea is good but due to effects of it - cannot be done.
When you made cheapest grain ppl came and bought it and foreign investors came and ruined it. Cheap workforce, good profits...Same will happen to this. 🙂
Regards,
Ludak021
Actually, the more I think of it - the worse it is. Overproduction being the first, closures the second, free spots (one day work and investors buying cheap closed comapnies) third, then your workers from the program exiting it since they can get twice as much on market at that point (since overproduction stops, demand raises since most of companies work for you or die in the process of step 1 and 2), then all collapses again when too much investors come in to exploit, and then you have chaos.
This is normal, you create order out of chaos and chaos out of order, but your plan will make artificial chaos 🙂 Call me when it starts 🙂