My nation operates what you could call a 'hand in glove' market. On the surface, it's a mixed market like in RL: shops on the street are owned privately, and compete with each other for customers. But if you go deeper than that, you'll see it's controlled by the government. You're going to need to define how deep private versus public ownership is. If shops on the street are owned privately, then are you referring to the ability to sell such products? Please clarify.
The shops are owned privately, but are supplied by the government. In essence, the idea is that the government doesn't want to sell goods directly because, well, it isn't as...personal, I suppose, as a shop with bottom lines to worry about. Plus, it gives the population the illusion that the government does [i]not perment every aspect of their society. So a PR boost, and one less thing for the frankly colossal government to worry about. Hence the title.
Sure. By "means of production", I mean that the government owns all the mines, all the farms, all the lumber forests, all the fisheries, etc. right up to when it arrives at the shop for sale. This only counts for physical goods (including software) - it does not own prostitutes, for example, though it does own any equipment used in such. It owns all the -what's the word- primary and secondary industries, leaving the tertiary (service) mostly to the private sector.[/i] They own all means of production, and through that have an enormous amount of power. What do you mean in terms of the means of production? The means of production is a pretty antiquated term nowadays, and there's so many different actors within a given network that simplified Marxist terminology isn't going to provide image. Again, can you clarify?
Take bread, for example. IRL wheat is sold to bakeries, who sell it to shops, who sell it to customers, each taking a percentage for profit. Not so here, where both bakeries and wheat farms are owned by the government, who then contract with various independent retailers.
Does that means that all material and resources are controlled and constructed by the government?
Yes, all materials are gov. owned. It's only because of the aforementioned mental conditioning that they haven't gone insane - even then, they still rely heavily on computer records.
How do you differentiate between primary, secondary, and tertiary industries?
*cocks head* I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Primary is gathering raw materials, Secondary processes them into usefulness. Tertiary are 'person-to-person' jobs that are too...small, I guess, for the government to worry about. Not 'unpopular' small, but...not...wide-affecting? Basically, if your job is to entertain people in some way (the arts, the oldest trade, chatting to customers), you can operate independently.
What about grey and black markets?
There are none. As I've stated, the entire point of Oppressorion is to keep everything under control, up to and including mental conditioning and surveillance. Any time anyone goes to sleep, they are subjected to random checks - and the more people know of it, they more likely it is to be found.
What happens if an independent contractor from outside enters the market? Is that allowed, or would they have to work through the government?
Anyone can set up a business, provided there is room (the cities have designated commercial zones). But not contracting with the government is impossible. Not because it is illegal not to do so, but because there are no domestic alternatives. Importing goods is allowed, but there is a lengthy inspection period for each shipment to check for illegal items. Also, Oppressorion is kinda remote - not 'cabin-out-in-the-woods' remote, 'cabin-out-in-the-snow-in-the-Arctic'. Really, the only reason anyone is still there is either indoctrination that only by staying can they be safe from foreign powers (understandable given that said foreign powers were how they ended up stranded there in the first place), patriotism or plain stubborness. That, and leaving is really, really hard. Outside of the cities, it's a toxic, polluted wasteland.
around the city through a central distribution office. Essentially, instead of the shops buying bread, the gov. pays them to sell it for them. [b]What about goods that the government would have difficulty procuring? Say, for example, rare earth metals. If you had a natural shortage or comparative disadvantage of rare earth metals and can only get it from somewhere else, what role would the government play, if at all?
They'd contract with a supplier to get it imported, private or otherwise.
Theoretically, this system was set up so that in the event of disaster, [b]What sort of disaster? There are a variety of disasters that affect economies in different ways. Please clarify.
Part of the reason Oppressorion's climate got to be the way it is was a huge, not-so-natural disaster. That screwed up the environment hugely, and meant that they had dust storms, hurricanes, and droughts to deal with. Oppressorion's cities (the gov. is distributed among various city-states) were created specifically to survive these hazards (lots and lots of concrete and steel), so naturally the government took control of food and medical supplies for stockpiling. After that, it sort of got out of hand.
supplies could be distributed quickly to the general public as the suppliers are already owned by them By the government, you mean. There are two major problems with this assumption. First, you're assuming that there is a plentiful amount of given resources at any given time. This is usually not the case in a good economic climate, and even worse in a very bad economic climate, especially one that is predicated by something sudden like a disaster. The scarcity that comes about means that you have to either use what you have to deal with the situation by yourself (which, depending on the type of disaster, may be catastrophic), or you need to open borders, allowing inbound goods that are not controlled by the government. How does the government account for something like that? The second problem is that you're assuming the government is more efficient than the private in allocating goods. That may not always be the case. In many instances that is true, yes, because the government has the supreme command of territory because of a military force, but it's still beholden to massive redundancies, inefficiencies, and corruption. This problem may be even more pronounced when you consider that governmental relief must account for a lack of altruistic actors, whereas private actors may not (for example, donation organizations in a crisis can field more volunteers with less corruption per unit because that's their shtick. Governmental relief doesn't have that sort of luxury, because it's built into the administration).
...Jesus.
Right.
Uh.
One bit at a time,then. Ahem:
As I've said, the gov. typically keeps stockpiles of supplies around precisely for this. In truth it isn't much of a problem (the cities' architects did a good, if very expensive, job), but if the gov. had a motto it'd be 'prepare for the worst'. That's their big flaw, really - they're so concerned with survival that they've completely neglected letting their citizens be happy. As such, their disaster relief plans are totally overthought and pessimistic, with enough supplies kept in each city to survive pretty much anything despite making the populace miserable.First, you're assuming that there is a plentiful amount of given resources at any given time. This is usually not the case in a good economic climate, and even worse in a very bad economic climate, especially one that is predicated by something sudden like a disaster. The scarcity that comes about means that you have to either use what you have to deal with the situation by yourself (which, depending on the type of disaster, may be catastrophic), or you need to open borders, allowing inbound goods that are not controlled by the government. How does the government account for something like that?
The second problem is that you're assuming the government is more efficient than the private in allocating goods. That may not always be the case. In many instances that is true, yes, because the government has the supreme command of territory because of a military force, but it's still beholden to massive redundancies, inefficiencies, and corruption. This problem may be even more pronounced when you consider that governmental relief must account for a lack of altruistic actors, whereas private actors may not (for example, donation organizations in a crisis can field more volunteers with less corruption per unit because that's their shtick. Governmental relief doesn't have that sort of luxury, because it's built into the administration).
*Shrugs* I don't think they particularly care.
In addition, it means that all workers involved can be paid fairly. Not necessarily. You're imposing a very simplistic mechanic on payment. For a better understanding of payment, you need to account for three major things: base versus relative costs and benefits, sectoral bargaining, and financial freedom. Base versus relative cost means that for an organization, when you put X amount of money into an organization, you gain Y amount of utility or goods. Some organizations benefit from greater utility or production compared to others with the same fixed costs. This allows more money to be allocated to other things, such as pay. The private sector allows multiple actors to experience multiple amounts of X > Y, with the ones that best maximize the relationship to grow the best. You're assuming that the X > Y relationship for the government is already optimal. There's nothing that implies that to be true. Please account for that.
The gov. didn't build this system to make it the most efficient - they built it as an extension of their philosophy, according to which using middlemen are inefficient because they all try to make a profit to ultimately inflate the price. As such, they own the whole thing to prevent people from gaming it, and pay everyone a flat rate.
Sectoral bargaining are unions. The government needs to address unions, whether formal or informal. This is even more important when you consider the immense reach of your government in the private sector as well as the fact that you're implying that one entire sector (tertiary) is private, where the others are not. What happens if the tertiary sector starts bargaining against the government? Does it have an answer for something like that? In primary and secondary dominant locations (such as rural farms) that may not be an issue, but what about heavy financial and technology sectors, that don't rely on too much physical product? How does the government prevent monopolistic or monopolistic practices from popping up?
Parts of the service sector are controlled, others are not. Services that produce products the gov. see as useful, such as software and technical work, are nationalised whereas -damn, I need to find a word for this- um, 'Entertainment?' services are left to their own. Those are jobs that directly please or entertain people, like comedians, actors, studios, entertainers, painters, sculptors, etc. As for unions, they do exist in a limited form as a way for HR to be informed of issues, but slowdowns and strikes are right out.
Oh god. Um, "Pass.". I get one pass, right?Financial freedom is tied to the second one. You don't mention finances, which are incredibly important because they can determine not only how much eat unit of physical product is worth (and thereby the government's strength in bargaining as a bearer of primary goods), but also what happens when your sales are private. I'm assuming that since your tertiary sector is private, people will need loans to rent out stores or purchase licenses to sell or to purchase product to sell. That means that banks will have to loan them out. Do you have a private or a public reserve? How do you account for something like capital? Please clarify.
This probably isn't the best time, but I've been considering how currency is meant to work. For some time I've had the idea that incentives were provided in the form of 'luxury licences', that enable upgraded living conditions (comfortable furniture, decorations, a private television, etc.), that are kept for the duration of a job. The idea is that these are separate from regular credits, which cannot buy these things. Unfortunately, I have no idea how this can work - for example, how are the guys who make these things going to be paid without setting a price in credits on anything, and how are they going to stay in business with a restricted market?
I think it was just a case of not being aware rather than deliberate obstruction, but I think I've cleared it up.
), could someone, as some guy said earlier, "present the kinks in the factbook's armor". Even if the answer is a "Nokthxbai", thanks in advance, and 