Log in

View Full Version : Nationalized Industries and the Bank



Entrails Konfetti
8th June 2005, 03:36
I'm wondering,in a society where industries are nationalized how would it relate to the bank in paying off loans ?

apathy maybe
8th June 2005, 07:31
If there is no economic system such as we have now, then why do we have to worry about loans to industry?

In this system, factories fail because either they can't get enough customers or their costs are too high (which might be related). If a factory is using an inefficient system of manufacturing things, then it deserves to be shutdown, else it doesn't matter I guess.

If a factory wishes to expand, then it does so, if the expansion fails, well we are all human I guess.

(Sorry if this seems a bit weird, I got distracted and forgot what I was going to say.)
(And what is that thing in your avatar?)

anomaly
8th June 2005, 08:09
Wouldn't banks also be nationalized? This means that if a specific industry needs financial assistance, the government would simply move some funds into that industry. With the tax system that I think would exist, along with reduced military expenses, and with a certain amount of funds from sales going towards the government, moving or adding funds to an industry would be rather easy (a surplus in government money is almost guarenteed). So if some industry is having a difficult time, the government must first decide if this industry should be reformed. If not, and it is just experiencing a down year, funds from the federal government can go to assist the industry in production. This industry then will simply owe that much money to the federal government (to be paid in an 'up' year). It is in this way that the government in a socialist system can provide economic stability to sectors of the economy that have no stability under capitalism.

Entrails Konfetti
9th June 2005, 22:15
"Wouldn't banks also be nationalized? This means that if a specific industry needs financial assistance, the government would simply move some funds into that industry. "

> The money has to come from somewhere,where would this money from the bank come from ? If all the starting business needed x amount of money to start, would there be chances there wouldn't be enough money for all of them ,or that the banks themselves could be in some sort of debt ?

"With the tax system that I think would exist, along with reduced military expenses, and with a certain amount of funds from sales going towards the government, moving or adding funds to an industry would be rather easy (a surplus in government money is almost guarenteed)."

> But in a nationalized industry,doesn't all the money go to the social programs the government provides,except ofcourse the wages of workers ? And if there was surplus money wouldn't it be more likely the money would be decided to go into social programs or to be given to the workers as bonuses ?


"It is in this way that the government in a socialist system can provide economic stability to sectors of the economy that have no stability under capitalism."

But, ofcourse the Government would have to decide which industries are needed and not,or to expand an industry, right ?


"(And what is that thing in your avatar?)"

Its a modified photo of my dog.

anomaly
10th June 2005, 08:10
Originally posted by EL [email protected] 9 2005, 09:15 PM
"Wouldn't banks also be nationalized? This means that if a specific industry needs financial assistance, the government would simply move some funds into that industry. "

> The money has to come from somewhere,where would this money from the bank come from ? If all the starting business needed x amount of money to start, would there be chances there wouldn't be enough money for all of them ,or that the banks themselves could be in some sort of debt ?

"With the tax system that I think would exist, along with reduced military expenses, and with a certain amount of funds from sales going towards the government, moving or adding funds to an industry would be rather easy (a surplus in government money is almost guarenteed)."

> But in a nationalized industry,doesn't all the money go to the social programs the government provides,except ofcourse the wages of workers ? And if there was surplus money wouldn't it be more likely the money would be decided to go into social programs or to be given to the workers as bonuses ?


"It is in this way that the government in a socialist system can provide economic stability to sectors of the economy that have no stability under capitalism."

But, ofcourse the Government would have to decide which industries are needed and not,or to expand an industry, right ?


"(And what is that thing in your avatar?)"

Its a modified photo of my dog.
The government will bring in an extensive amount of money with socialism. All large private businesses are eliminated (and owned by the gov't), and so all money private companies would be receivng will go to the gov't, and that is in addition to taxes. So in reality it would be the local governments distributing some of this incoming money to local places of production, with the guarentee, of course, that this loan would be repaid in full when the local production place gets back on its feet. I think that the banks will mostly handle citizen's accounts, not large factory loans. Local governments will see the failing of specific factories in their area and then call to the state and federal governments to get some extra money moved toward this factory (if such a move is practical).

Workers salaries would be determined by the efficiency of production of the their workplace. This means that if a certain amount of goods from their factory is sold in the market, some money made will be distributed back to theat workplace and be used for worker salaries (with this planning of production and consumption, factories and other workplaces will likely be able to actually plan wages ahead of tiime). There will be extra money from these sales, of course, and these profits will go to the store or service distributing these goods for wages. Extra money, after all wages are taken care of, will go to the government. Also, the government will take in taxes from every citizen. This money will be used to fund social programs, but it is rather outlandish to believe that all of this money will be used in social programs. I imagine soem sort of government trust will be set up for extra money. From this trust, gov't loans can be payed out to factories experiencing a bad year (that is, if the factory has atleast a moderate chance of survival, if their product is simply outdated, production will be reformed). I hope that explains things a bit.

And yes, of course the government will decide if an industry is 'washed up' so to speak, of if an industry is ready to boom. These things can be determined by looking at consumption tendencies.

Entrails Konfetti
10th June 2005, 22:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:10 AM
Also, the government will take in taxes from every citizen. This money will be used to fund social programs, but it is rather outlandish to believe that all of this money will be used in social programs.
But, whats the point of taxing the individual,if the company they work for brings in money for the government ? The government will have money for the social programs,so its pointless to tax.

CCCPneubauten
11th June 2005, 01:25
But what you must understand is that ALL those social programs are quite expensive, and starting costs are a bugger. It might be hard at first...it WILL be hard at first. So this could be a problem, as most Americans can't stand their taxes now. But to lead a socialist nation one must be a good capitalist, for the government is like one big bussiness. To an extent.

anomaly
11th June 2005, 06:03
Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Jun 10 2005, 09:47 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Jun 10 2005, 09:47 PM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 07:10 AM
Also, the government will take in taxes from every citizen. This money will be used to fund social programs, but it is rather outlandish to believe that all of this money will be used in social programs.
But, whats the point of taxing the individual,if the company they work for brings in money for the government ? The government will have money for the social programs,so its pointless to tax. [/b]
Taxes will be very graduated, and will be used for all sorts of things. You must understand that in socialism, the government will require much funding. Specifically, the taxes will be used partly for redistributive policies (federal taxes) and also the construction of roads and highways, among other things. The government can use all the money it can get. Fear not, though, as the proletariat will be taxed very little in comparison with the upper levels of society.

Entrails Konfetti
11th June 2005, 23:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:03 AM

Taxes will be very graduated, and will be used for all sorts of things. You must understand that in socialism, the government will require much funding. Specifically, the taxes will be used partly for redistributive policies (federal taxes) and also the construction of roads and highways, among other things. The government can use all the money it can get. Fear not, though, as the proletariat will be taxed very little in comparison with the upper levels of society.
Let me start off by showing you two diagrams ,to help me explain my position.

Commodities under capitalism :

Products
with a profit = means of prod./raw mat. + labour power +profit
attached


Possible commodities under socialism:

products with
public spending = means of prod./raw mat. + labour power + public spending
attached


So instead of a capitalist making vast amounts of profit off of commodities the public spending (formally know as profit) will go directly to society.If the selling of commodities was as wide spread as western capitalism,do you really see a point in the taxing on icome ,why wouldn't the public spending be able to cover infrastructure ?

Also,if the upper classes wither away as predicted,wouldn't the taxing become heavier over time for the proletariat ? And there would definately have to be some sort of definition of what the proletariat is,especially in such a society as North America.