Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4

[I am a Coward so I use Alts]

It's probably a mildly negative VAT, so at the point where the invented good is created the usual VAT of (for the sake of argument) 10% is waived for a rate of, say, -5%. The patent remains transferable as a claim for the tax refund. Length is probably a decade but I think there should be a longer patent for airplanes or other "long-lead" items. In any case what the Pigouvian subsidy is for ideas is an empirical question and I am shit at econometrics.

The point of this system isn't to maximize tax revenue but to maximize tax revenue growth (i.e. the productive economy). Rent-seekers will face competition from those who have access to the information of the patent itself and are aggressively trying to undercut them. Even if the inventor is subsidized if someone else steals all their sales away the inventor won't make any money because he isn't making any sales of his own.

That sounds cool aha. In your view, what would be the downside to Taihei Tengoku's patent system?

[Taihei Tengoku]

The biggest weakness is other countries. The TT system essentially rejects the concept that ideas can be "stolen," while the very concept of intellectual property requires it. I think this would lead to a bifurcation of the Taihei market: domestic products are full of IPs that other countries consider "stolen" while anything it exports abroad are incredibly bland and generic (or don't involve IP at all, like services) because they keep out products with patent violations.

For trade secrets the actual crime would be fraud or in a civil suit a breach of contract and damages assessed by the court. Dumb stuff like plagiarism remains frowned upon but are generally dealt with privately. The strict legal position on "trade secrets" is "if you want to keep a secret then don't make it public." Military patents are considered state secrets, however, and leakers charged with espionage or treason.

[The Macabees]

The point of this system isn't to maximize tax revenue but to maximize tax revenue growth (i.e. the productive economy). Rent-seekers will face competition from those who have access to the information of the patent itself and are aggressively trying to undercut them. Even if the inventor is subsidized if someone else steals all their sales away the inventor won't make any money because he isn't making any sales of his own.

I think the idea is pretty interesting and unique overall. This is purely intellectual curiosity:

1. Strong claim: to have any patent-like or patent-replacement system at all, you must accept the assumption that giving the inventor monopoly [a competitive monopoly, in this case] prices, so they can recoup the investment. Or no? Why oppose IP then? [I don't mean that accusatorily, The Golden Throne has very lax IP laws as well, if there are IP laws at all. I've been toying with compromises too, but so far I've only really considered variations of a much more limited patent system.]

2. This rule would still protect a monopoly profit (that term used loosely, because I mean an all else equal price advantage - because part of the tax is paid for by the business that subsidy would reduce costs), and so it would still invite rent-seeking in the sense of filing frivolous patents. But it's a weaker profit protection program than a patent program that grants 10- or 20-year patents, so that would reduce rent-seeking for sure in the sense of making it less lucrative. A 2- or 4- year patent program would do the same, relative to a 10- or 20- year patent program.

3. It would depend on the elasticity of demand, but for simplicity's sake let's assume the extreme case of a completely inelastic demand curve, I think you'd lose tax revenue. If a monopoly big-pharma company can sell the same amount of drugs for a higher price, you'd make more revenue. The counter-argument I can think of is that while this may be true in partial equilibrium, it wouldn't be true in a general equilibrium or an intertemporal equilibrium, but this could only be answered empirically (maybe differences in the rate of growth of big-pharma revenues in different countries charted against their patent system, somehow ranked on a scale representing their propensity to protect monopoly profits).

Again, it's a comment more so in the curiosity sense, because the idea is clever.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Are bullbars, push bars, etc. legal in your nation?

It is my understanding that many nations ban them IRL for safety reasons, chiefly pedestrian safety. It is known that modern car manufacturers make efforts to increase or at least meet safety regulations. This means that (especially) car fronts are designed to cause as little damage as practically possible if they strike a pedestrian. It might also be the case that the bullbar could interfere with the effectiveness of the crumple zone and airbags?

The degree to which these regulations are enforced, and the penalties imposed, probably vary from country to country and perhaps even from one case to another. Generally speaking it seems that they are mainly disallowed during the mandatory technical inspection of cars - many users apparently take them off and put them back on right after. Idk if getting stopped for one is actually a thing.

If you do allow them, do you have any exceptions, for like emergency vehicles, public transportation or taxis?

Apparently some newer models made of polyurethane plastic are expressly designed to flex for the reasons stated above and may or may not (?) be legal in jurisdictions otherwise banning them.

What I actually had in mind for (some) of my police vehicles was to have the bullbars affixed to the cars' frames themselves lol (or is that how they're normally mounted? idk)

Also, since I've brought this up: safety and pollution regulations/ratings for vehicles in your nation? Any governing bodies or standards organizations (Euro NCAP, IIHS etc.)?

[Taihei Tengoku]

The point of this system isn't to maximize tax revenue but to maximize tax revenue growth (i.e. the productive economy). Rent-seekers will face competition from those who have access to the information of the patent itself and are aggressively trying to undercut them. Even if the inventor is subsidized if someone else steals all their sales away the inventor won't make any money because he isn't making any sales of his own.

I think the idea is pretty interesting and unique overall. This is purely intellectual curiosity:

1. Strong claim: to have any patent-like or patent-replacement system at all, you must accept the assumption that giving the inventor monopoly [a competitive monopoly, in this case] prices, so they can recoup the investment. Or no? Why oppose IP then? [I don't mean that accusatorily, The Golden Throne has very lax IP laws as well, if there are IP laws at all. I've been toying with compromises too, but so far I've only really considered variations of a much more limited patent system.]

2. This rule would still protect a monopoly profit (that term used loosely, because I mean an all else equal price advantage - because part of the tax is paid for by the business that subsidy would reduce costs), and so it would still invite rent-seeking in the sense of filing frivolous patents. But it's a weaker profit protection program than a patent program that grants 10- or 20-year patents, so that would reduce rent-seeking for sure in the sense of making it less lucrative. A 2- or 4- year patent program would do the same, relative to a 10- or 20- year patent program.

3. It would depend on the elasticity of demand, but for simplicity's sake let's assume the extreme case of a completely inelastic demand curve, I think you'd lose tax revenue. If a monopoly big-pharma company can sell the same amount of drugs for a higher price, you'd make more revenue. The counter-argument I can think of is that while this may be true in partial equilibrium, it wouldn't be true in a general equilibrium or an intertemporal equilibrium, but this could only be answered empirically (maybe differences in the rate of growth of big-pharma revenues in different countries charted against their patent system, somehow ranked on a scale representing their propensity to protect monopoly profits).

Again, it's a comment more so in the curiosity sense, because the idea is clever.

1. I think that is true. Innovation has a positive externality so the marginal private benefit to the individual is smaller than the marginal social benefit. That being said I think the difference between my system and actual IP is that actual IP is a true monopoly while mine is monopolistic competition. There are hard barriers to entry under IP while the patent subsidy is only indirect, allowing the reduction of economic profits immediately after promulgation. Even if the long-run equilibrium for the product is reached before the patent runs out whoever holds it still is compensated while the general surplus is still maximized.

2. How would the business pay the tax while still being subsidized? Since the reward is based on production I don't think there is a need to hold frivolous patents--even if you were to patent each individual component of a complex system the sum of their separate values added and the value added of the whole should be equal and if you cannot find anyone to produce your invention it makes you no money and the idea turns into public domain.

3. That is true.

[The Macabees]

1. That's fair enough.

2. That's also fair enough. What I meant by paying the tax, though, is that patented business had a price advantage compared to its competitors. The subsidy factors into the price of its product; all else equal, it will be able to sell at a lower price point than its competitors.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The price advantage is the incentive I am trying to create.

[Austrasien]

How exactly are the two options restricted to 'Become a Sharia-governed state' and 'Remove anything that is not a good, white, Christian population'?

There is no historical example of a population being fully replaced and it's institutions, society and culture continuing. "white, Christian" is simply the native population of Europe, predominantly the people who have lived there since about the last ice age. They are now being replaced faster than any time since then, non-European populations will become a majority in almost every western country within the century. This has never happened before, not just in Europe. It is both the logical and inevitable outcome of current demographic trends, driven by immigration and sub replacement fertility, that native Europeans will be demographically replaced. And rather soon. But there is a great cognitive block many people have to admitting the demographic transition they can see is actually happening and an unshakeable conviction that somehow, someway none of this will pan out; but in the meantime absolutely nothing should be done to change the replacement trajectory or even slow it.

There is no historical example of a population allowing itself to be replaced in such a manner peacefully and populations that have been replaced have never be seen to benefit. So even in the very best possible interpretation Europe is entering completely uncharted waters, and there can be no certainty things will go well. This policy will be irreversible in about a generation or two (at most) unless Europeans abandon democracy. If around say 2075 it is realized things are not going well for the native population there will be no backing out. Future generations of Europeans have in effect been disenfranchised by the decisions made today, as they will be outvoted in the future by immigrants and the children of immigrants.

Not unlike the hardcore religious Zionists who are waiting for the messiah to come and restore the "real" Israel. Any day now. As they have been for two thousands year. One day Frederick will stir under the mountain, Constantine's marble will become flesh, Drake's drum will beat again and Europe will be saved. The Saracens will be thrown back. That they will constitute roughly half the population by the end of the century is a very minor detail.

The only real analog to what is happening now in Europe is the European settlement of the Americas. And this did not end well for the natives of the Americas. In fact countries who Europeans settled or attempted to settle are almost unanimous that the process was horrible for them. Palestinians are adamant that Israel is the worst thing ever. Perhaps you believe some people are inherently moral superior to others, but if you don't then why should you expect the settlers arriving in Europe today will behave any differently in the long run than settlers (of all kinds, European settlers of the Americas, Han settlers of South China and Central Asia, Arab settlers of the Roman Empire, Israeli settlers of Palestine; they have all behaved essentially the same) did throughout history? Today they are weak because they are few in number. But every sign points towards their numbers growing both in absolute (Africa increase in size by multiples of Europes entire population) and in relative (there is no indication European fertility will recover, and as the baby boomers begin to die off the native population will plummet far faster than is generally appreciated) terms for as long as can be foreseen, until they have completely replaced the original European population.

Even a baby boom cannot reverse this trend unless it begins within a generation or so. Current trends point to Europeans dwindling away to nothing, and all historical evidence suggests when they vanish so will vanish "Europe" in every sense of the term. And this process will not happen over so incomprehensibly vast time span but within about the next two hundred years. A German, Swede, Briton or Frenchman born today will live to see the day when they are a minority in their homeland. Their child will live to see the day when they become an unwanted minority. And the native minority is always unwanted when the settlers finally achieve dominion, the smaller the native population gets the weaker they become, the weaker it becomes the worse they are treated; compare the visions of most of the Early Zionists to what Israel has become, even Jabotinsky would be a moderate in modern Israeli politics. So too have Israel's religious parties moved inexorably to the right, once they were mostly skeptical of the whole notion that Israel could be recreated without the intervention of God and only supported it as an alternative to being exterminated, now the majority are close political allies of the settler right. The more powerful Israel becomes the less interested Jews have become in reaching any kind of accommodation with the Arabs. In another generation they will probably be engaging in wholesale population transfer to complete the settlement of the west bank and Jerusalem. There is no reason to expect the African and Middle Eastern immigrant communities growing up in Europe will act any differently in the long run. Canadians certainly were no respectful of the treaties they signed with the native peoples, most of which were wonderfully liberal documents about coexistence and mutual benefit, all of which was forgotten within a few decades; we were rising and they were falling, we had no reason to respect the promises we made, and they had no means of enforcing them.

Of course most Europeans are very blase about all this. But this is for all intents and purposes religious conviction, there is no evidence they can point to. They are making a tremendous leap of faith, they have no plan, they have no contingencies. In their minds the stage of world history is still in Europe, their power is flowing away from them but they cannot comprehend it. They see themselves as the actors and everyone else (especially non european, non white, non christians) as the re-actors. Muslims are far more hostile towards westerners than vice-versa. Europeans still remain convinced this is a "reaction" to something or other they did. Because that is how it works, they act and the browns react. That the contempt the immigrants arriving in their countries direct towards them may be a genuine action, and expression of the ambition of these communities to rise in power, is something Europeans cannot really comprehend. They see their own power in the world as something bad and undesirable, and the idea of a cosmopolitan society of equals as the ideal. But there is little indication this is an ambition any significant group outside of the west shares. Westerners have forgotten how much you suffer when you become weak and must put yourself at the mercy of others. Non-westerners overwhelmingly have not, and they by and large seek to surpass the west by one means or another, not join their goofy utopia.

[Allanea]

Except literally the reverse is true when you speak of Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky was literally an advocate of a physical conquest of the entirety of what is today Jordan and parts of Syria via an armed struggle, an idea that is so central to Etzel ideology was their actual logo. For decades Israeli Arabs and Palestinians alike were put under actual military rule. The 'population transfers' you refer to were actually Israeli policy once, and so were retaliation strikes on Arab civilians. None of these are currently being used.

The only real analog to what is happening now in Europe is the European settlement of the Americas.

It's not an analogy at all whatsoever. Europeans in thet Americas are not 'immigrating' into the polities that the Native Americans had. They formed their own polities (sometimes with the consent of the natives, other times seizing their land by force) and then formulated explicit plans of their 'extermination'.

A better example would be 19th-century and 20th century immigration into the US of Hispanic, Eastern European, and Chinese immigrants and Italian Catholics. The sort of 'swamping' you speak of was constantly predicted, constantly spoken abou, and every single time turned out to be wrong.

[Kazarogkai]

Speaking of a different topic, one not of demographics but of economics, lets talk about currency:

In a world where gold and silver, sometimes together, reign supreme say sometime in in the later 19th early 20th century what would be the results of a country deciding to do an alternative? Within the world of post "War of Empires(WW1)" during which they were able to achieve a bloody piece via exhaustion they initiated a second series of reforms which built upon the previous series. Most of these reforms were in the form of military matters but a rather large number were economic. A particularly notable one came in the form of their currency which switched from the old shell currency that had been their mainstay for so long over to something a bit more modern known as the Paper Shana, an old word which meant shell/money. Rather than go the conventional route though the Kaza are a bit weird and chose instead to use rice as the main backer of their currency.

To provide a small bit of context. In the olden days the Kaza didn't really even have a proper currency being a really large series of palace economies situated on a rather large and mildly isolated archipelago, the closest thing they had was bushels of rice. It wasn't until the advent of foreign trade bought about by unity under god king and the subsequent imperial wars that he waged onto the mainland that some type of formal currency for the merchants was needed and with that came the shell currency. Lacking any sort of indigenous gold or silver the associations those things had in other regions never took root in the Kaza mind. As a result they made use of an alternative in the form of a local indigenous species known as the Kaza black pendant shell. This got the ball rolling and with time they even were able to impose said currency onto the various portions of their hegemony. Though with time they did eventually run into a rather large source of of silver it remained little more than a pretty trade item. This remained as such all the way until after the aforementioned "War of Empires(WW1)" during which the reforms took place.

The reasoning was simple. With the loss of the silver producing region of their hegemony and lacking any sort of gold they didn't wish to place themselves in a situation where their currency would be dependent on outsiders as such they sought something that would be available locally while at the same time being reasonably valuable in their eyes. Taking ancient Egypt and it's wheat backed monetary system as my inspiration they chose rice, more specifically African rice. The primary staple of the Kaza diet.

So any problems you guys can forsee, I imagine inflation could be an issue right guys? I can imagine some rather interesting results to. In times of crisis when they need to infuse cash into the system all they gotta do is increase yield. Another coolish feature is the fact that nothing like the Nixon shook will probably come about I imagine. The reason why gold isn't used as a backer is because of it's scarcity, there just isn't enough of it to sustain a large growing economy and the amount of it is basically fixed being a non renewable resource. In contrast agricultural yields seem throughout history to always go up as a result the currency will grow with the economy and as such they never really have to worry about there not being enough currency to go around and with it a deflationary crisis. I think.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Rice isn't a durable store of value and exposes the currency to random real shocks inherent to agriculture.

[Kazarogkai]

Rice isn't a durable store of value and exposes the currency to random real shocks inherent to agriculture.

It lasts up to a year when stored correctly and you can replenish it every year from various harvests. The Egyptians were able to effectively do it with wheat, whats wrong with using rice in a similar manner?

[The Akasha Colony]

Rice isn't a durable store of value and exposes the currency to random real shocks inherent to agriculture.

It lasts up to a year when stored correctly and you can replenish it every year from various harvests. The Egyptians were able to effectively do it with wheat, whats wrong with using rice in a similar manner?

Because the Egyptians were an ancient civilization that didn't have the faintest notion of things like the business cycle, inflationary monetary policy, trade imbalances, or the balance between inflation and unemployment. It's like asking "If stone wheels worked for Egyptian carts, why bother with inflatable rubber wheels for modern cars?"

The Egyptians did it because they had no better ideas. That doesn't make it a good idea. But here and now, we have plenty of good alternatives. And unless your nation exists in a world where everyone makes the same decisions, your nation would see the comparative benefits of a more stable and reliable currency and prefer that over anything else.

I think you strongly underestimate the market shocks inherent in the agricultural market. Agricultural commodities are fine if your annual yields are fixed and the market is stable. But annual yields vary widely, which is why most developed countries have developed some form of price control to keep farmers safe from bad years and allow consumers to buy food at affordable prices.

On top of this, the market for a major commodity like rice is heavily affected by conditions in other countries. A bumper crop in Asia could depress rice prices worldwide and suddenly devalue your currency. Conversely, shortages would suddenly increase the relative value of your currency. These conditions would make any trade in goods that isn't rice extremely difficult because their prices could fluctuate widely. It leaves your economy hostage to the performance of international rice markets.

This is why nations preferred the more stable commodities of gold or silver and worked to devise more complicated ways to stabilize value, such as commodity baskets and what turned out to be the ultimate solution: fiat money.

[Purpelia]

One thing to consider is that thanks to the Nile flooding regularly on que every year Egypt probably had a much more stable food production situation than most countries of the period. Now, of course even they had bad years, famine and all that happen occasionally. But it was more stable than most. So that's something that probably contributed as well and that he probably won't have on his side.

[Allanea]

Rice isn't a durable store of value and exposes the currency to random real shocks inherent to agriculture.

It lasts up to a year when stored correctly and you can replenish it every year from various harvests. The Egyptians were able to effectively do it with wheat, whats wrong with using rice in a similar manner?

Storing rice 'correctly' in these sort of quantities effectively requires modern technolog (it needs to be kept very dry).

[Questers]

Rice isn't a durable store of value and exposes the currency to random real shocks inherent to agriculture.

It lasts up to a year when stored correctly and you can replenish it every year from various harvests. The Egyptians were able to effectively do it with wheat, whats wrong with using rice in a similar manner?

thailand

[Hyggemata]

How do you guys like this character?

[Hyggemata]

One thing to consider is that thanks to the Nile flooding regularly on que every year Egypt probably had a much more stable food production situation than most countries of the period. Now, of course even they had bad years, famine and all that happen occasionally. But it was more stable than most. So that's something that probably contributed as well and that he probably won't have on his side.

In China rice could be stored up to five years (husked). Until about the 7th Century, wages for bureaucrats were paid in rice, and often massive quantities. Transactions, though, usually were done with bronze coins or gold.

[Kazarogkai]

One thing to consider is that thanks to the Nile flooding regularly on que every year Egypt probably had a much more stable food production situation than most countries of the period. Now, of course even they had bad years, famine and all that happen occasionally. But it was more stable than most. So that's something that probably contributed as well and that he probably won't have on his side.

That is sorta the case in Kazarogkai, sorta...

The reason why it is the case isn't because of a super reliable river/irrigation system, though yes African rice is very hardy and the monsoons are usually reliable, it comes from Kazarogkai's size. Kazarogkai is effectively an archipelago with the largest and main island being the size of Greenland. Unlike Egypt whose eggs were in effectively a single basket, sure a really solid one but still, Kazarogkai has the luxury of having many different semi reliable baskets of sorts. From the great heartland resting atop the central plateau home to the shores of the holy lake Samasho to the twin rivers that feed it, and onto the great savanna to the west and east, and the monsoon lands of the far east to the highlands of the north and south. Mixed this in with an extensive and ancient(relatively, it's only existed for 1000 years) infrastructure system of roads, bridges, canals, and recently railroads which allow surpluses from one area to quickly reach deficits in another. Basically their kinda gotten to a similar situation as imperial china, a large continuously growing population which outside of isolated localized cases rarely sees famine in times of peace. So what I'm saying is though yes they don't have the Nile but they do have a really well developed internalized trade system that results in effectively the same thing more or less.

One thing to consider is that thanks to the Nile flooding regularly on que every year Egypt probably had a much more stable food production situation than most countries of the period. Now, of course even they had bad years, famine and all that happen occasionally. But it was more stable than most. So that's something that probably contributed as well and that he probably won't have on his side.

In China rice could be stored up to five years (husked). Until about the 7th Century, wages for bureaucrats were paid in rice, and often massive quantities. Transactions, though, usually were done with bronze coins or gold.

That's more or less what I'm going for in a sense.

Actual transactions will not literally be in rice, instead a reserve currency will be used in the form of paper banknotes. The backing will be something like 1 Porter(~42 lbs) per Note. Give or take. Just like if it was backed by gold one is able to got to a local bank and exchange it for said rice if they wish.

[Welskerland]

How advance some would a PMT nation be regarding space travel? I want Welskerland to have a few colonies on other celestial objects, but they are mostly mining and research outposts rather than any big settlement like a town or city.

[Allanea]

How advance some would a PMT nation be regarding space travel? I want Welskerland to have a few colonies on other celestial objects, but they are mostly mining and research outposts rather than any big settlement like a town or city.

The question you need to ask yourself is:

Based on your understanding of the physics and engineering involved, how expensive would space launches be?

If your nation has invested in a way to launch things into space cheaply, it's likely it would have an extensive, though mostly automated, space exploration process.

[Allanea]

The technology to have stations on the moon has been around for at least a few decades, it's just it would be superbly expensive to resupply them.

[Gallia-]

How advance some would a PMT nation be regarding space travel? I want Welskerland to have a few colonies on other celestial objects, but they are mostly mining and research outposts rather than any big settlement like a town or city.

Are you asking if a PMT nation would have commercial space travel? The answer is no. The only commercially useful aspects of space for the foreseeable future is in orbit. There might be some billionaires who take a rocket up around the moon or something, but hot air balloons and sailing by boat aren't exactly normal ways to cross the Atlantic these days either.

A manned moon colony does not need to mine. In fact, it does not need to exist (nor, really, should it), since it produces very little of value. The principal utility of space for science is unobstructed views of stars, which can be achieved even easier than putting a telescope on the moon by putting the telescope in Earth orbit instead, on a solar powered satellite. In fact, this is so much more practical, it is the only actual method of space telescope that exists.

Robotic laboratories have some utility. They can do essentially anything a human can besides plant the national flag on a far away piece of dirt for vanity purposes, they can do it cheaper, they can do it faster, and they can do it safer. Arguably most importantly, if it a robot dies no one cares, unlike human astronauts.

[Welskerland]

How advance some would a PMT nation be regarding space travel? I want Welskerland to have a few colonies on other celestial objects, but they are mostly mining and research outposts rather than any big settlement like a town or city.

Are you asking if a PMT nation would have commercial space travel? The answer is no. The only commercially useful aspects of space for the foreseeable future is in orbit. There might be some billionaires who take a rocket up around the moon or something, but hot air balloons and sailing by boat aren't exactly normal ways to cross the Atlantic these days either.

A manned moon colony does not need to mine. In fact, it does not need to exist (nor, really, should it), since it produces very little of value. The principal utility of space for science is unobstructed views of stars, which can be achieved even easier than putting a telescope on the moon by putting the telescope in Earth orbit instead, on a solar powered satellite. In fact, this is so much more practical, it is the only actual method of space telescope that exists.

Robotic laboratories have some utility. They can do essentially anything a human can besides plant the national flag on a far away piece of dirt for vanity purposes, they can do it cheaper, they can do it faster, and they can do it safer. Arguably most importantly, if it a robot dies no one cares, unlike human astronauts.

I was thinking of having robotic laboratories, but if a robot can be put on a planet and do the same tasks as a human, wouldn't it follow that machines would also be taking over the jobs and economy back in Welskerland?

[Gallia-]

Are you asking if a PMT nation would have commercial space travel? The answer is no. The only commercially useful aspects of space for the foreseeable future is in orbit. There might be some billionaires who take a rocket up around the moon or something, but hot air balloons and sailing by boat aren't exactly normal ways to cross the Atlantic these days either.

A manned moon colony does not need to mine. In fact, it does not need to exist (nor, really, should it), since it produces very little of value. The principal utility of space for science is unobstructed views of stars, which can be achieved even easier than putting a telescope on the moon by putting the telescope in Earth orbit instead, on a solar powered satellite. In fact, this is so much more practical, it is the only actual method of space telescope that exists.

Robotic laboratories have some utility. They can do essentially anything a human can besides plant the national flag on a far away piece of dirt for vanity purposes, they can do it cheaper, they can do it faster, and they can do it safer. Arguably most importantly, if it a robot dies no one cares, unlike human astronauts.

I was thinking of having robotic laboratories, but if a robot can be put on a planet and do the same tasks as a human, wouldn't it follow that machines would also be taking over the jobs and economy back in Welskerland?

Possibly.

The actual source of deindustrialization is outsourcing/offshoring, though. Provided you can keep industrialization in the bag/other civilizations agrarian, that wouldn't be an issue.