Taxes, the Imperium, and You!

[actionman]

Fine as long as New Starbuck doesn't talk.

 

[ottarrus]

Well, YTU is whatever you say it is [and more power to you].
But every source going back to 1977 says that the megacorporations are the primary suppliers of a host of Imperial activities, from military procurement to privatized governmental services to the citizenry. In many respects, the Imperium runs rather like the classic Soviet troika... the three legs being the Government [incl. Nobles], the Military, and the Megacorps [with considerable crossing of the streams].
And the problem with a top-down demand economy is that the level of corruption is increased while the quality of the goods produced is severely decreased. And again I point you to the lousy quality of goods produced by top-down demand economies since 1917.
You'll note I am not using the words 'Communist' or 'Socialist' here. I am not talking about the theories of government, I'm talking about the real-world effects of an economic model.

I probably should have explained this one better. People on this board are quite intelligent but I keep forgetting that they don't have the same world history and political education I do.

The Soviet Union and PR China are/were top-down, fixed price, demand economies. What that means is this:
- Prices were permanently fixed on what might be called a 'populist common sense' basis. For example, it was decided that 'a loaf of bread should cost 1 ruble' and that was all it ever cost the citizens even thought the costs associated with creating that loaf of bread continually rose. This is especially true when one considers that the Soviets ran at a grain deficit almost every year from 1917 to 1992. That meant that the Soviets had to import grain from the West. So if that loaf of bread costs 1.25 rubles to make from local sources, you can bet it cost 2+ rubles importing grain in bulk. But the price fixing had no place to absorb 0.75+ rubles for every Soviet citizen every day. Therefore the economy was running at a deficit just to feed the population. Now imagine the same logic applied to the costs of a tank division or an aircraft carrier. Or a space program, comes to that.
- Because of all the cost deficits across all sectors of their economy, the Soviets had a difficult time producing all manner of goods including simple items that any industrialized nation should be able to produce... thinks like steel, fuel oil, or concrete.
- Wages were likewise fixed and were only raised when there was no other alternative. Again, the fixed idea that a machinist should make 'x' while an engineer should make ['x' + 'y']. But this doesn't take into account that there aren't enough machinists or engineers or tractor drivers for that matter to meet the entirely artificial goals set by the government.

All of this led to huge inefficiencies in the Soviet and Chinese industries and these inefficiencies led to crippling backlogs in the supply chains for important things while still producing large amounts of things they already had warehouses full of.

And with wages set in stone and no incentive to work harder or produce higher quality products, the items their industries did produce were shoddy and rarely performed to the design specifications.

Last thing: when I mentioned the 'troika' I meant the tripod of agencies that the Soviet and the Chinese governments rely on to stay in power... these are the Military, the Party and the Intelligence /Internal Security services. And if you look at the power structures in those nations today, you'll see that not a lot has changed. The Russians have replaced the Party with the oligarchs and Bratva and the Chinese have pretty much left Mao behind [though it's a killing matter to say so out loud] and have become Socio /Capitalists.

 

[CordwainerFish]

The Russians have replaced

the KGB with the FSB... though it was more of a rebranding. New name, same friendly service!

 

[ottarrus]

the KGB with the FSB... though it was more of a rebranding. New name, same friendly service!

Same lovely accommodations at #2 Dzerzhinskiy Square [or whatever they renamed it]

 

[MarcusIII]

Same lovely accommodations at #2 Dzerzhinskiy Square [or whatever they renamed it]

Lubyanka Square now I believe.

 

[CordwainerFish]

Same lovely accommodations at #2 Dzerzhinskiy Square [or whatever they renamed it]

The basement rooms there used to have the best view in all of Moscow. You can see all the way to Siberia.

 

[MarcusIII]

the KGB with the FSB... though it was more of a rebranding. New name, same friendly service!

They've upgraded the service. They now have drive through windows.

 

[Jame Rowe]

All other PC taxable transactions would be 'transparent' for game purposes. I have to think that because mention of 'taxes to the 3I' is absent from the CRB and CSC.

I read this, and realized that I assumed that taxes were included in the purchase cost of equipment items.
I think I'll assume that taxes are included on speculative trade results, as well.

 

[phavoc]

I probably should have explained this one better. People on this board are quite intelligent but I keep forgetting that they don't have the same world history and political education I do.

The Soviet Union and PR China are/were top-down, fixed price, demand economies. What that means is this:
- Prices were permanently fixed on what might be called a 'populist common' sense' basis. For example, it was decided that 'a loaf of bread should cost 1 ruble' and that was all it ever cost the citizens even thought the costs associated with creating that loaf of bread continually rose. This is especially true when one considers that the Soviets ran at a grain deficit almost every year from 1917 to 1992. That meant that the Soviets had to import grain from the West. So if that loaf of bread costs 1.25 rubles to make from local sources, you can bet it cost 2+ rubles importing grain in bulk. But the price fixing had no place to absorb 0.75+ rubles for every Soviet citizen every day. Therefore the economy was running at a deficit just to feed the population. Now imagine the same logic applied to the costs of a tank division or an aircraft carrier. Or a space program, comes to that.
- Because of all the cost deficits across all sectors of their economy, the Soviets had a difficult time producing all manner of goods including simple items that any industrialized nation should be able to produce... thinks like steel, fuel oil, or concrete.
- Wages were likewise fixed and were only raised when there was no other alternative. Again, the fixed idea that a machinist should make 'x' while an engineer should make ['x' + 'y']. But this doesn't take into account that there aren't enough machinists or engineers or tractor drivers for that matter to meet the entirely artificial goals set by the government.

All of this led to huge inefficiencies in the Soviet and Chinese industries and these inefficiencies led to crippling backlogs in the supply chains for important things while still producing large amounts of things they already had warehouses full of.

And with wages set in stone and no incentive to work harder or produce higher quality products, the items their industries did produce were shoddy and rarely performed to the design specifications.

Last thing: when I mentioned the 'troika' I meant the tripod of agencies that the Soviet and the Chinese governments rely on to stay in power... these are the Military, the Party and the Intelligence /Internal Security services. And if you look at the power structures in those nations today, you'll see that not a lot has changed. The Russians have replaced the Party with the oligarchs and Bratva and the Chinese have pretty much left Mao behind [though it's a killing matter to say so out loud] and have become Socio /Capitalists.

When I took my first Russian studies course as an undergad, our teacher had spent some time in the Soviet Union (pre-Russia) and travelled around a bit. One of her favorite jokes shared with her was that the Soviets had a saying during the height of collectivization - "We pretend to work while the state pretends to pay us". At the time she told us if we traveled to Russia to bring extra Levi's - as they were worth a lot of money and customs didn't really care about it. Everyone knew you didn't need 20 pairs of jeans for a 30 day stay, but you could always tell them that they were gifts for friends and relatives.

Loosely translating "We pretend to work while the state pretends to pay us", workers got paid regardless of their output or quality. The goods they could buy were the ones produced by the same workers who had the same incentives - which were none really. You couldn't just sit there and NOT work, but you weren't motivated to do well since even if you were able to make oodles of extra rubles, you really had nothing to spend it on. People queued up for everything since there was a finite supply and saving money was rather pointless since investments (other than things like TP for da bunghole) basically had no future value.

Russia of today, and China, are a mixed economy, more or less command-directed capitalism, but not exactly that. Both have tried experimenting with limited capitalism while both have still tried to control the state industries. Both have also profited greatly by having open export economies (Russia with raw materials, China with manufacturing) where they are able to extract profits from the West and then turn around and purchase Western goods and other services without having to fully open up their own economies in return.

When Pepsi and McDonalds were operating in Russia their profits were trapped since they had no mechanism to convert rubles to dollars and pull them out of the country. Pepsi was especially creative, having been there far longer than McDonalds. Pepsi would barter for vodka and export that, and for a period they bought military ships (cruisers, destroyers, submarines) and brought them to the West for scrap metal value. At one point they even took their Russian rubles and had Russian shipyards build freighters and oil tankers that they would then either resell or operate to recoup expenses and liberate their profits.

 

[MonsterX]

I wouldn't necessarily assume that just because the Russians couldn't make a command economy work, it is impossible to make a command economy work. They also couldn't make a market economy work.

I think it is entirely plausible that the IN would have an internal command economy to back it - and, as with all such systems there would be corruption and other pathologies involved. Because I find it makes a more interesting game, I tend to prefer to have lots of corporate involvement, with defense contractors and such, which also creates many opportunities for corruption and inefficiency.

 

[Condottiere]

Reversion back to the norm.

Less command economy, rather incentivized economy.

Incentivizes are given for specific outcomes.

Like not meeting them, and arguing over Czar granted rights, is rewarded by an extended Siberian vacation.

And military recruitment requires financially incentivizing the recruits' relatives.

 

[MarcusIII]

I wouldn't necessarily assume that just because the Russians couldn't make a command economy work, it is impossible to make a command economy work.

Yes, one can make almost anything "work". It will be completely fcked up and inefficient but it will "work". They never tried a market economy. They tried an economy run by gangsters with the government protecting them and thus NOT the market dictating. LMAO

 

[phavoc]

I wouldn't necessarily assume that just because the Russians couldn't make a command economy work, it is impossible to make a command economy work. They also couldn't make a market economy work.

I think it is entirely plausible that the IN would have an internal command economy to back it - and, as with all such systems there would be corruption and other pathologies involved. Because I find it makes a more interesting game, I tend to prefer to have lots of corporate involvement, with defense contractors and such, which also creates many opportunities for corruption and inefficiency.

It's absolutely not impossible to make it work. All of the types of governance defined in texts (true direct democracies, republics, communism, etc) all CAN work.

But they rarely work without issue because of people. It takes a very dedicated populace who is willing to put in ALL the effort to make them work in the place. The US Republic is ecstatic when voting reaches 70% participation - and that's only during the presidential cycles. Take your annual voting for local issues and if you get 20% participation you are doing great.

People choose (or not) to participate. A collective farm can work great - just as long as some pigs don't think they are more equal than the other farm animals. Or humans. If you can fix that problem then you'll have many more successful examples of textbook definitions being true.

It IS entirely plausible that the Imperium could have a successful command economy. However all of human history to date says that isn't happening so long as you have humans. But it's a game and fantastical things are already built into the model, so from that perspective it is entirely plausible.

 

[MonsterX]

It's absolutely not impossible to make it work. All of the types of governance defined in texts (true direct democracies, republics, communism, etc) all CAN work.

But they rarely work without issue because of people. It takes a very dedicated populace who is willing to put in ALL the effort to make them work in the place. The US Republic is ecstatic when voting reaches 70% participation - and that's only during the presidential cycles. Take your annual voting for local issues and if you get 20% participation you are doing great.

People choose (or not) to participate. A collective farm can work great - just as long as some pigs don't think they are more equal than the other farm animals. Or humans. If you can fix that problem then you'll have many more successful examples of textbook definitions being true.

It IS entirely plausible that the Imperium could have a successful command economy. However all of human history to date says that isn't happening so long as you have humans. But it's a game and fantastical things are already built into the model, so from that perspective it is entirely plausible.

The market economy provides built-in incentives to certain behaviours, many of which are beneficial - many of which are not, but on the whole under the right conditions, the market economy tends to produce economic growth, mostly automatically without anyone at the tiller (or at least not very much - regulation, fiscal and monetary policy coordination is usually needed). A command economy COULD in principle do the same, but to do it successfully requires 1) that the commissars managing the whole thing are not corrupt (or at least, not very, very corrupt) and 2) that the right incentives can be given to the right people at the right time to get them to do the things the economy needs. The first condition is difficult to achieve, the second nearly impossible because economies are far, far too complex.

However, if you have a society 1) run by wise selfless benevolent rulers and universal surveillance, with total authority combined with 2) unlimited computer processing power, achieving an efficient command economy is entirely in reach. In the Traveller setting the second requirement is trivial, but the first is going to be a bit more difficult.

A far more likely outcome, and definitely more fun from an RPG perspective, is a command economy run by corrupt officials who pretend that everything is going right because the Computer says it is, but the Commissars have actually set things up so that all the resources are funneled to them, while the Computer justifies this with data "proving" this is just the most efficient way to do things. Pretty soon we're getting into Paranoia territory here, thought.