Foreign policy in relation to local economics.

Discussion in 'Religion & Politics' started by Baya Rae 4900, Jan 27, 2012.

  1. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    36,323
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    I need an example. Let's say I'm in charge of Australia. Now I'm informed enough to know that the market reigns supreme and for the most part I wouldn't intervene in the local market. I would, however, support foreign regimes which were inclined towards socialist policies. Why? Because it's easier to deal with one person than a hundred or a thousand. On top of that, it eliminates competition for Australian producers. On top of that, it makes said regimes dependent on trading with Australia. Et cetera. Your opinion?
     
  2. molb*

    molb*
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,076
    Occupation:
    Bulbous
    But you know that there will always be a sufficient number willing to deal with you. If the socialists "elect" a suckass, you might have to kiss their trade relations goodbye.
    Except their leaders would likely turn to nationalism/protectionism. Politically speaking, long term decline is much better than short term austerity.
     
  3. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    36,323
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    I don't think you understand the nature of socialist regimes. Socialist regimes own and control everything. Things like protectionism and austerity belong outside the socialist school of thought. If they decide not to trade then they decide to spend their dwindling resources on keeping up with demand (for goods and services for urban areas) and that is a losing battle for socialist regimes. Socialism, like it's predecessor feudalism, is ultimately a rural centric ideology and can only succeed as such.
     
  4. molb*

    molb*
    Expand Collapse
    EDF Hero

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,076
    Occupation:
    Bulbous
    I dunno, socialism seems more interested in pretending to be self-sufficient than actually clothed and fed.
     
  5. Baya Rae 4900

    Baya Rae 4900
    Expand Collapse
    Lawlman

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    36,323
    Occupation:
    Nazi Chocolate (25.8069)
    Home Page:
    No. It's all about power. Centralising power. You see, the people who want to be socialists and install socialist regimes don't want to have to negotiate or make deals with people. They want to take at will. They want to exploit at will. They want to draft at will. They don't want to have to compete with anyone or anything. Et cetera. Socialism is merely the end result of the pursuit of power and a casus vis for all power hungry individuals. The complete centralisation of all economic, political, cultural, social and military (among others) power in the hands of a single individual or clique.