State economics

[Anonymous No.1525820]

Imagine for a moment, that one's nation was able to deal entirely within their borders. Having every resource one would ever need located within their walls, so no trade is needed between other nations. Yet threats from other nations is a very real possibility, so military might is essential. Food is taken care of, as is housing and water.
The main concern would be defense of said resources, or ability to expand.

My question is, what economic system would flourish, all the while allowing for a strong state, able to deal with other nation's threats?
Market economy? Planned? Natural?

Or would an Open economy hold more benefit? Trading with potential future enemies, while allowing our own state to specialize in a certain area more, and buying what we are less skilled in manufacturing.

[Inurdaes !lololSGJBw No.1525867]

http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

[Anonymous No.1525862]

Edward Gibbon on the fall of the Roman Empire;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire
>According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens. They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire.

Gibbon believed that too much outsourcing, especially in the military, was a significant part of why the Roman Empire collapsed.
As far as an Open Economy goes, so long as the nation isn't dependent on it, and is able to pick up its own slack, should the need arise, it seems fine. It's when outsourcing becomes a crutch a nation can't do without that it's in trouble.

[Anonymous No.1525894]

>>1525862
The empire also simply became too large to maintain and control at the time. Rapid expansion and inflation.
Pic related, Roman Empire under Trajan in AD 117.

[Anonymous No.1525949]

>>1525867
Great read.

[Anonymous No.1525993]

war ravages economies, and in this day and age, makes no sense whatsoever. wars are only fought for ego and faith. there is no such thing as a successful war, as that would require you to prevent all future wars.
globalized economy makes everyone a winner. 100% open trade with everyone all the way. in 50 years, virtually all extreme poverty in the world will be eliminated, thanks to globalization.
outsourcing is not a bad thing; outsourcing entire labor markets while not improving your own human capital is.

[Anonymous No.1526052]

>>1525993
>In 50 years, virtually all extreme poverty in the world will be eliminated, thanks to globalization.

Some would argue the opposite. Take for example a Diamond Dealer. He gets his diamonds for virtually nothing, and resells them for thousands. What is more important to him? The well being and happiness of those digging the diamonds, or the money in his pocket? If he had the choice, would he pay his workers less for the same amount of diamonds as he currently receives, or would he pay them more?
The same scenario can be scaled to nations.

[Anonymous No.1526630]

"Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil"

>The book concerns the structure of society and legitimate government, and is regarded as one of the earliest and most influential examples of social contract theory. The publisher was Andrew Crooke, partner in Andrew Crooke and William Cooke. It is often considered one of the most profoundly influential works of political thought ever written.

[Anonymous No.1526646]

>>1525949
Typical liberal.

[Anonymous No.1526674]

>>1526646
I'm a typical liberal because I enjoyed reading that story? I'm unsure if you linked the right post or not...

[Anonymous No.1526952]

>>1525993
>globalization
All you fucks sound like broken records "we have poverty and war thus globalization is the only way to end tyranny."

I can't even write out a serious response because your appeal to the ethos is weak & lazy and your appeal to the logos is sub-elementary.

[Anonymous No.1526984]

>>1526952
OP here. Ignore that poster, I'd be very interested in hearing your views if you're still around.

[Anonymous No.1526994]

>>1526052

But he does have to spend that money. He will ultimatly employ and support other people through the selling of his diamonds. You have to get to the point where people won't work for nothing because there are other jobs that pay better.

Granted, if they keep have 50 children each, then yeah, the system doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.1526996]

>Having every resource one would ever need located within their walls, so no trade is needed between other nations

OP you don't understand why nations trade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

[Anonymous No.1527005]

>>1526996
I touched on that in the last paragraph of my post ._.

[Anonymous No.1527014]

>>1527005
So what use was the first paragraph?

[Anonymous No.1527023]

we're not writing your political theory term paper for you OP

[Anonymous No.1527024]

>>1525820
If every resource is in the nation, what would be the point of expanding or invading other nations, and thus, what would be the point of other nations doing so if they had sufficient resources?

[Anonymous No.1527029]

>>1527014
It mentions how all goods can be produced locally, removing the necessity of foreign trade.

[Anonymous No.1527033]

>>1527024
Population density.

[Anonymous No.1527037]

So at time 0 the state has resources worth defending and no army? As a practical matter, the state would have to start by trading for military materiel and munitions.

Or is there a pre-game 'setup' period?

[Anonymous No.1527042]

This scenario needs more parameters. Current population, education level, demographics and infrastructure at time 0.

Or are we to assume that we are dropped into a resource-rich failed state -- no social capital, no infrastructure, no governance, starting from scratch?

[Anonymous No.1527047]

>>1527037
>>1527042
Let's play this out from scratch.

[Anonymous No.1527054]

So from scratch:

We're airlifted into a resource-rich country that has no infrastructure, no education, no industry, just a bunch of natural resources that could provide for food, water and shelter?

I would say job #1 is to figure out which is the most benevolent and democratic superpower, and try to become a protectorate.

You can't defend the realm without materiel, munitions and a trained army.

Nobody will trade you the stuff you need for that army when they can just walk in and take it from you since you are entirely undefended.

If you're dropped into the presidential palace, your job is to become a colony of whatever state you think is most capable of protecting you and least likely to enslave you.

[Anonymous No.1527061]

Presuming other states in this system do not have perfectly sufficient resources, the only ethical thing to do is become a free-trader. Specialization increases efficient and economic welfare. If you're able to provide for yourself in a centralized non-trading economy, you can provide for yourself AND increase the welfare of those outside your borders by trading.

[Anonymous No.1527082]

>>1526984
A Jewish economy. Seriously a religion is a country without borders and the use of brute force is for barbarians. Spies are an armies greatest asset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage#History

I hope this reply doesn't come off too indirect but I don't see the use in defending political borders when you can more effectively work behind a castle's walls attacking the ideologies.

[Anonymous No.1527177]

>History
>/sci/

wat