Are centrally-planned economies the best way to industrialize a poor country?

>if you want to become rich at the expense of the public you're a shitty human being

That's why I hate socialist and commie planner politicians.

>"Go-getter entrepreneurs" are like those gross asshole kids who spit on cookies so nobody else will eat them

Ah yes, because making it so that nobody else wants to eat your cookies is a good way to sell them and make money.

Idk why I'm responding because nothing you said made sense.

Maybe I've played Victoria 2 too much, but state capitalism is a fascist ideology.

There are private businesses and public corporations, but they are backed up by the purse of the state which acts in its own self economic interest.

Its the economic policy of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and modern China.

Private business exists, but its often receives injects of capital and state interest (state owned enterprises that act like competing businesses) and the state does other nice things like manipulate its currency for its home businesses.

Soviet Russia was not really state capitalist in that regard because it tried to regulation demand where state capitalism does not address that issue and simply treats its corporations as if they were like regular capitalist corporations except they are owned by the government.

Although you are right, your text is painful to read.

>State capitalism IS a centrally planned economy
The state being a player in a capitalist economy doesn't mean central planning.

You don't know what a centrally planned economy is; you have no idea of what you're posting about. Stop.

Why post if you're totally ignorant about the topic?

>except they are owned by the government

That's a pretty big deal.

>The state being a player in a capitalist economy doesn't mean central planning.

In state capitalism the government (the state) is not just a player, but the only player, so it does mean that the economy is centrally planned.

You quite literally have no idea what Fascism, State capitalism, or central planning are. Stop using them as buzzwords.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

What would you call this? It certain isn't free market capitalism.

Also what would you call modern China's economy? They have trillions worth of SOEs so its not free market either. Its not communist anymore either though.

victoria2wiki.com/Party_issues#State_Capitalism

You're both wrong, state capitalism was coined by socialists of the Second International to disparage social democrats who called themselves socialist but only wanted nationalization. Hardcore socialists don't want a state at all, they want the workers to control industry.

Like they do with all horrible aspects of governance, fascists 50 years later decided to adopt state capitalism uncritically.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#People.27s_Republic_of_China

>n this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors. They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain.

>gradually all sweatshop countries grow out of it

Not really.

State capitalism exists to the exclusion of private enterprise you dumb shit. It's when the state subsumes the role of private capitalists as owner and arbitrator of the means of production.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that literal fascists tend to be politically illiterate teenagers.

Why is modern China considered to be state capitalist when it lets private businesses make phones for Apple?

For full on industrialization,no.
For partial industrialization or a start up of basic goods industry,yes.

There is no reason to discuss this.It has been tried and true.Only preliminary is a more closed economy.

>In state capitalism the government (the state) is not just a player, but the only player
If the state owns a considerable portion of the means of production, but there still are private ownership and free enterprise, the economy isn't centrally planned.

See And before that, Nazi Germany followed the same road.

>citing a video game

JESUS CHRIST

/thread

Unfortunately, most Veeky Forumsdittors will ignore this post and continue commie-posting because they think that the USSR national anthem is cool.

Name one nation which has transitioned to an industrial powerhouse as quickly as Russia, in a Lasseiz-Faire system

>poor country
>centrally-planned economy
Lol no. If you have uneducated people + rampant corruption as is typical in poor countries, don't even try to fucking play with statism and welfare. Free market is enough of a challenge at that state of development.

All companies are 50 percent owned by the Communist Party.

Worked brilliantly for Stalin though

Japan.

Heavy government subsidy was involved to create Japanese corporations

>INDUSTRIALIZATION IS NOT NECESSARILY MORE FEASIBLE UNDER A CENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMY, BUT IT IS EASIER

Easier for whom?

Central planning favors big business (that can be controlled without much delegation) at the expense of small and medium sized business. Easier for bureaucrats and planners, but not for everyone else.

...

t. Retard

...

>In state capitalism the government (the state) is not just a player, but the only player,
[Citation needed]

Now whats THIS spicy meme?

Alibaba is 100% non-state owned.

Japan is literally the original state-capitalist.

Just because it is not anymore doesn't change that that fact.

It's what happens when redditors attempt to make a book about Veeky Forums

>look mom I posted it again

Not really. Import Substitution economies are the best way to industrialize poor countries.

21st century mercantilism??

Was economy under Pak Chung Hee centralised?

research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2016/09/12/the-visible-hand-the-role-of-government-in-chinas-long-awaited-industrial-revolution/

>China is undergoing its long-awaited industrial revolution. There is no shortage of commentary and opinion on this dramatic period, but few have attempted to provide a coherent, in-depth, political-economic framework that explains the fundamental mechanisms behind China’s rapid industrialization. This article reviews the New Stage Theory of economic development put forth by Wen (2016a). It illuminates the critical sequence of developmental stages since the reforms enacted by Deng Xiaoping in 1978: namely, small-scale commercialized agricultural production, proto-industrialization in the countryside, a formal industrial revolution based on mass production of labor-intensive light consumer goods, a sustainable “industrial trinity” boom in energy/motive power/infrastructure, and a second industrial revolution involving the mass production of heavy industrial goods. This developmental sequence follows essentially the same pattern as Great Britain’s Industrial Revolution, despite sharp differences in political and institutional conditions. One of the key conclusions exemplified by China’s economic rise is that the extent of industrialization is limited by the extent of the market. One of the key strategies behind the creation and nurturing of a continually growing market in China is based on this premise: The free market is a public good that is very costly for nations to create and support. Market creation requires a powerful “mercantilist” state and the correct sequence of developmental stages; China has been successfully accomplishing its industrialization through these stages, backed by measured, targeted reforms and direct participation from its central and local governments.

>b-but muh laissez-faire is best

China insustrialized at the fastest pace in worls history. It even beat fellow state-capitalist South Korea by 3-5 years.

>China industrialized at the fastest pace in worls history
>what is Japan

Also, stop mixing up your s key and your d key.

>what is Japan

Something that took 90 years versus China's 40 so far.

eh.net/encyclopedia/japanese-industrialization-and-economic-growth/

1865-1940 is longer than 1970-2015.

South Korea is the contender for fastest alongside China.
1955-2000.

>quickly

I don't care about how fast, lives are at stake. You didn't have mass famines because no one is at the farms anymore in lassiez-faire countries, most of the poverty issues came from poor urban planning because the cities weren't ready for the factories, and eventually those became fixed after awhile.

Central Planning is inefficient because when one agency owning all of the capital cannot possibly tell how to best allocate it since there are no prices to make the rational decisions.

>1865-1940 is longer than 1970-2015.
But the access to technology and communications was much much higher in 1970 than in the 1860s...

Do you not know what Keynesianism is, what communism is, or both?

Japan accomplished significantly more in between 1950 and 1990 than China has in between 1950 and present day.

You do realize lives are also at stake as people wallow in rural poverty? Compare Chinese infant mortality in 1950 to 2000.

>appealing to humanity

The capital doesn't give a single fuck about it.

Yes, but knowingly implementing policies that completely uproot people without them having too much of a say in it is a bit different from their options being open. The problem with rural poverty like you're talking about is often that there are too many farmers not producing food productively (and that farms are often unpredictable due to the weather) and factory jobs are more secure because of a wage (even if it is lower than one might like)

>the capital doesn't give a single fuck about it
Of course it doesn't, but I do and less people die in the smooth transition that central planning cannot do.

if there's already a wealth of resources on hand, yes, See: Russia and China

in the cases of smaller nations, trading with foreign powers is the only way to get the steel, copper, aluminium, and rubber needed to make an industrial economy roll if they aren't within their borders.

for examples of that, Vietnam ended up being more or less a success story, but only after they reconnected with the outside world and entered trade organizations to get the resources they lack. Meanwhile Laos and North Korea remain on the brink of starvation or collapse, as there's not enough within their borders to sufficiently support their own state.

It seems to be the quickest way too industrialize, but it always seems to have long term effects that hamper industry and the economy in the long run. So if you need to make your country ready to fight a world war in ten years and you are starting from scratch I think a centrally planned economy is pretty good way to become ready.

You do realize this gif came from reddit right

>The free market is a public good that is very costly for nations to create and support.
Relinquishing your stranglehold over the economy doesn't cost you anything, it only reduces your income.

Communists tend to support various ideological leaders then when it fails pull back their support and claim it wasn't a true attempt to begin with.
They did that with Stalin.

Where can I buy this book?

It's a book written by the hardcore neonazi Ben "empty my nine in the wellfare line" Garrison.

amazon.com/Rogue-Cartoonist-Internet-Perils-Citizen-Muckraker/dp/1631928287

Nah, nobody ever said "Stalin is doing communism", not even Stalin himself.

His economic policy was either state socialism or state capitalism, depending on who you ask, but many Western commies supported Stalin because they saw him as the most viable means to create a communist society. That meaning, a society where there is now government and no class division.

Stalin's brutal agricultural reforms were an attempt to get to this anarchic utopia. Stalin believed the government was necessary to redistribute ownership of mines and farms and factories from the bourgeoisie to the workers. He expected Russia to have full stateless communism by the late 20th century. Obliviously, Russia never experienced full communism.

By the time of his death, most Western commies had abandoned Stalin. These days, the only Stalinists outside of Russia are particularly edgy leftists who appreciate his strong leadership and aggressive reforms.

Okay?

>and less people die in the smooth transition that central planning cannot do.

Vietnam was still an autarky into the 2000's.

Also
>success story

>Relinquishing your stranglehold over the economy doesn't cost you anything
>it only reduces your income

So.... It does cost you something?

Tons of people dying because of sudden shifts in what resources are being made arbitrarily by the planners? It's like how you can acheive 100% employment by everybody digging a ditch and filling it back in all day, yet everyone will starve to death because you have nobody at the farms or anything.

What happened a lot with central planning is you would get incredibly misallocations of resources since there was no market price system for people to deterimine "I should make more of these since they command a higher price and I can make a bigger profit on them" and also say "I should do something other than making these since they command a lower price and profit margins are thin."

I think user was referring to it from the perspective of the state's income being reduced from tariffs and taxes and whatnot. Dictators and Bureaucrats not being able to afford a second pool isn't much of a loss.

Indeed, but it should only be treated as a temporary solution, until the desired result is achieved.

You are right, but also sort of wrong.
The problem is that there is a small sliding scale between A state that runs enterprises for capitalism, and a total planned economy.

You can things like Central Planning for most of the essential economy(infrastructure, food, mail), but allow import and enterprises to run amok in the rest of the economy.
Centrally Planned Economy != Totalitarian 100% planned economy

There is also a large difference between a State that runs its state to fuel its main corporations, and a state that just runs a few core corporations to complete economically.
I.E Samsung versus no idea whats good example on total