NationStates Jolt Archive

Different Definitions of Governments

Capitalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Notes
http://www.capitalism.org/
1. A socio-economic system characterized by private initiative and the private ownership of factors of production. In such a system individuals have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages. Furthermore, capitalism is predicated on a relative absence of governmental control of the economy. The function of regulating the economy is achieved largely through the operation of market forces, whereby the price mechanism acts as a signalling system which determines the allocation of resources and their uses. www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html
2. An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. The market determines the type, quantity, and price of goods. The government is to avoid interfering in the economy. The United States has a capitalistic system. members.tripod.com/~tutor_me/book/glossary.htm
3. a system of production of goods and services for market exchange in order to make a profit. In a capitalist system of production the means of production are owned privately, by the capitalist class (bourgeoisie). The working class (proletariat) sells their labour power to the owners of the means of production. Capitalism thus represents both an economic and a social system based on different social classes. www.trentu.ca/ids/glossary.html

Socialism/Marxism:
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/what_is_marxism.asp
1. An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in organizing the process of production. Instead, large-scale government planning is employed to ensure the harmonious operation of the process of production. www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html
2. A term covering many belief systems that oppose the concentration of wealth and power that is a natural part of capitalism. Whereas capitalists emphasize freedom for the individual to possess private property, socialists emphasize the well-being of the community. They strive to achieve this through many methods, including public ownership, regulation, and state-sponsored social programs. Socialism has taken on many different forms throughout the world, with varying degrees of success. Some socialists favor a gradual move away from unrestricted capitalism and the maintenance of a democratic society; others favor force to overthrow capitalism and distribute wealth. www.heritage.nf.ca/confederation/glossary.html

Communism:
1. Ideology centered on eliminating class inequality via collective ownership of means of production; form of one-party government controlling economy and society in name of such ideology. Rooted in work of Karl Marx and other nineteenth-century critics of industrial capitalism. After heyday in mid-twentieth century, influence declined with demise of Soviet Union and other Communist regimes (1989-91). www.emory.edu/SOC/globalization/glossary.html
2. a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society. www.imuna.org/manual/app_a.html
3. An economic system in which the means of production are owned and operated for the public by the government. The government determines the type, quantity, and price of goods produced. Communism promises to provide for everyone's needs and to have no social classes. Ideally government would not be necessary. members.tripod.com/~tutor_me/book/glossary.htm

Monarchy:
1. an autocracy governed by a monarch who usually inherits the authority
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
2. In the U.K the Monarchy is represented by the Queen. She does not make any major decisions although the Queen is required to agree Acts of Parliament before they become law. The Queen is head of the church of England. The Monarchy used to run the country but now we live in a Democracy and can vote for who we want to be in charge (govern)
www.citizenz.org/public_html/topics/A-c_action/c_action-terms.html
3. A political system in which power resides in one person or family and is passed from generation to generation through lines of inheritance.
www.sociologyessentials-2nded.nelson.com/glossary4.html

Constitutional Monarchy
1. a system of government which includes both a monarch (King or Queen) and an elected legislature. Macronational examples include Great Britain and Holland.
www.geocities.com/morovianinfo/introgloss.htm
2. system of government in which there is a king or queen, but actual power rests in a legislature.
web.isp.cz/jcrane/Glossary.html
3. a country which has a monarch, whose powers are limited by a constitution
www.aph.gov.au/find/glossary.htm

Theocracy: (not necessarily the same thing as Fundamentalist)
1. –– literally "the rule of God," however this is thought to be expressed (e.g., by His revealed principles, by His chosen leaders, by Himself in the person of the Son, etc.); the word is variously used by writers for different intended conceptions, some using it as a code word for uniqueness of Old Testament Israel, others using it for any social system where the church rules the state (or is not separated from it), and still others for a civil government which strives to submit to the socio-political standing laws revealed by God (in Old or New Testaments)
reformed-theology.org/html/dictiona.htm

2. Theocracy is derived from the two Greek words Qeo/j(Theos) meaning "God" and kra/tein (cratein) meaning "to rule." Theocracy is the civil rule of God. The government of the people of Israel until the inauguration of Saul is termed a theocracy.
www.two-age.org/glossary.htm

3. -a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)
-the belief in government by divine guidance
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Dictatorship:
1. a system of government in which one person has absolute authority, including complete domination of the citizens’ lives; the most basic of citizens’ rights are taken away in order to guarantee the leader’s hold on power
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0809222299/student_view0/glossary.html
2. a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
3. A system of government in which the power is with the elite and the rights of the citizens are not guaranteed.
www.cbe.ab.ca/b836/curriculum/social/socialgloss.html

Triumvirate:
1. The term triumvirate (Latin for "rule by three men") or troika in Russian, is commonly used to describe an alliance between three equally powerful political or military leaders. These alliances seldom hold very long. The term can also be used to describe a state with three different military leaders who all declare to be the sole leader of the state.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumvirate
2. Any member of a three person body (a triumvirate) was known as a triumvir. These groups were formed for any number of reasons. The most important triumvirate of note was the one formed by Mark Antony, Octavian, and Aemilius Lepidus. Lepidus was a commander under Caesar, but he vanishes from the story. This triumvirate was first formed in 43 BC, and was legally sanctioned by the Senate. Another ruling triumvirate had existed before, in 60 BC, which included Caesar, Pompey, and Marcus Crassus. However, this previous triumvirate was not sanctioned.
www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~frankwu/lac61vocab.html
3. a group of three men responsible for public administration or civil authority.
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Anarchy:
1. a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
2. The condition of having no central or dominant authority. Often used to characterize the world order where no one government or state or institution (e.g., the UN) rules.
www.bothell.washington.edu/faculty/bkochis/bls362/glossary.htm
3. Lawlessness; condition of no government or ruling power. S. 548.
https://www.mises.org/easier/A.asp

Fundamentalist:
1. Worldview or movement centered on restoring religious tradition or sacred text as guiding force in society, usually in opposition to ideas or practices considered modern. Term originates with American Protestant conservatives in early twentieth century; since used for type of evangelicalism. Commonly applied to efforts of Islamist groups or regimes favoring conservative morality and strict application of Islamic law. Appeal partly attributed to dislocations due to globalization; in turn influences global debate about process. Exemplified by policies of Islamic Republic of Iran (1979-).
www.emory.edu/SOC/globalization/glossary.html
2. Conservative religious authoritarianism in all faiths. It is marked by a literal interpretation of scriptures and favors a strict adherence to traditional doctrines and practices.
www.knowconflict.com/Impact_of_Terrorv110/glossary.html
3. Religious traditionalism and values incorporated into secular political activities.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072828048/student_view0/glossary.html

Oligarchy:
1. a political system governed by a few people
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
2. the ruling class. Usually a small group of wealthy individuals.
oregonstate.edu/dept/anthropology/glossary2.htm
3. – a government controlled by a small group to serve their own purposes.
www.whitehall.k12.mi.us/curriculum/socialstudies/glossaryofterms.htm
Fascism:
1. An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state.
www.nelson.com/nelson/polisci/glossary.html
2. centralized authority regimenting commerce and people; citizens are allowed to hold a piece of paper (land title, business license, central bank note, birth certificate) fooling them into thinking they have property ownership, then the "owners" are heavily regulated and taxed.
www.stormy.org/defin.htm
3. Political philosophy that became predominant in Italy and then Germany during the 1920s and 1930s; attacked weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism; promised vigorous foreign and military programs; undertook state control of economy to reduce social friction. (p. 870)
occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_F.html

Technocracy:
1. a form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control. www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

More Detailed Descriptions
Now includes NS nations under each category.

DEMOCRACIES:
Multiparty Democracy
The first question that most people ask about a government is whether it's democratic -- that is, whether its leaders are chosen by means of fair, competitive elections, and whether its citizens are allowed basic civil rights. Therefore, my very first cut divides the world into democratic and non-democratic nations. As far as this category is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the ultimate head of state is a monarch or president as long as the day-to-day policy decisions are in the hands of elected representatives.
FAQ: These aren't "democracies"; they're "republics". By strict high school government class definition, the citizens of a "democracy" exercise power directly, whereas the citizens of a "republic" delegate power to elected representatives. This, of course, is easily the stupidest thing that we were taught in high school. They've taken a perfectly fine word like democracy and defined it so narrowly that it applies to absolutely no working government whatsoever. All they've left us is the word republic, which they've defined so broadly that it encompasses such diverse nations as the US, France, China and Iran -- and yet is still too narrow to include constitutional monarchies like Japan and Sweden. In any case, since there is no mandatory authority on the meaning of English words, I've chosen to use the common meaning of democracy: any government which derives it's power through the consent of the governed, regardless of how that power is structured.
ALTERNATIVE NAMES: Some scholars prefer calling these governments "polyarchic" or "parliamentary". The first term, however, isn't even in the dictionary, while the second term implies that the English legislature is the archetype -- which is a bit ironic considering that the English parliament was generally opposed to the liberal revolutions in American and France. If we're going to label these governments after some specific legislature, lets call them Congressional or Assemblytarian or somesuch.

Limited Democracy
These are governments which come close to being full democracies, but they fall short in one critical field. For my purposes, it doesn't really matter how they fall short. It usually varies from country to country. Some have freely elected legislatures subject to the veto power of a military junta, a monarch or a strong president . Others are provisional governments run by coalitions pending new elections. Many are fully tolerant democracies which disenfranchise a substantial percentage of their adult population -- especially women early in the century.

Republic
Originally, any form of government not headed by an hereditary monarch. In modern American usage, the term usually refers more specifically to a form of government (a.k.a. "representative democracy") in which ultimate political power is theoretically vested in the people but in which popular control is exercised only intermittently and indirectly through the popular election of government officials and/or delegates to a legislative assembly rather than directly through frequent mass assemblies or legislation by referendum.

COMMUNIST STATES
The economy of these nations is centrally planned and operated by fiat. All industry is owned by the state. Power is monopolized by a centrally organized party which supports its legitimacy by quoting Marxist dogma.
FAQ: Communism is not the opposite of democracy. The proper dichotomy is communism vs. capitalism. Yes, technically, Communism is an economic system rather than a political system, but we just can't escape the fact that the 20th Century has seen this big block of countries that have had a lot in common with one another and less in common with the rest of the world. In fact, this block has been one of the century's most distinctive cluster of countries, so it seems rather evasive to not set up a category to cover them.
FAQ: These countries are not at all what Marx envisioned, so they aren't really Communist. Maybe not, but a lot of what passes for Christianity nowadays has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, and a lot of what passes for constitutional has nothing to do with Madison. Ideologies evolve, and I'd call any government Communist if it supports its arguments by quoting chapter and verse from Marx (just as I'd call any government Christian if it supports its arguments by quoting the Bible) regardless of whether they quote correctly.
ALTERNATIVE NAMES: Some scholars prefer to call them "socialist republics" or "people's republics", but the first alternative can sully the good name of real socialists, while the second is just silly.

AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES
These are regimes which severely limit who may participate in politics and stifle dissent with varying degrees of brutality. I've split these into three distinct categories, but they have so many similarities that I've used similar colors to indicate them.
Military Junta
-The regime came into power through force of arms, and policies are set by one or more career military officers.
Single Party State
-Power is restricted to a single faction with a unified goal.

Autocracy
-A single leader rules by decree.
ALTERNATIVE NAMES: dictatorship, despotism, tyranny

TRADITIONAL MONARCHY
The state is considered the private estate of a single family. It is ruled at the discretion of the monarch and passed down from father to son, from mother to daughter, or just to the first heir, throughout eternity.
NOTE: Often the monarch himself is not the real ruler. Instead, power may be in the hands of courtiers, ministers, regents and chamberlains, and allocated by means of palace intrigues. This sometime makes it difficult to decide whether a nation with a personally weak (but legally strong) monarch -- like, say, Willhelmine Germany or Imperial Japan -- is an absolute monarchy or junta or limited democracy or what.
FAQ: Monarchy is not the opposite of democracy. The proper dichotomy is monarchy vs. republic. In my system of classification, the first cut is between democratic and non-democratic, but many political scientists would make the first cut between monarchy and republic, and then make a four-fold cut into democratic and non-democratic monarchies, democratic and non-democratic republics. While this might have been the best way to classify governments in the 19th Century -- when all the monarchs of Europe were cousins who tended to stick together, and republics were an aberration -- it would be a bit anachronistic to retain this system much past the First World War. Nowadays the monarchies are the aberration, and democracies tend to stick together.

Elected Monarchy
An elective monarchy is a monarchy whose reigning king or queen is elected in some form.
Currently, the world's only truly "elective monarchies" are Vatican City, where the Pope is elected to a life term by (and usually from) the College of Cardinals, and the Kingdom of Cambodia, in which kings are chosen for a life term by The Royal Council of the Throne from candidates of royal blood. Some may argue that the remaining communist regimes are also "elective monarchies", as successors are often chosen within the communist party. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il succeeded his father Kim Il Sung as leader. These regimes, though they possess many features of absolutism, are not officially proclaimed as monarchies.

UNCLASSIFIED
There are three categories for regimes which don't really have a classifiable government:
-No Self-Government
-The region is under the authority of an alien and geographically detached nation.
ALTERNATIVE NAMES: colonies, dependencies.
-No Government
Because of widespread civil war, the authority of the central government does not reach throughout the nation. Policy decisions are determined by firepower.
ALTERNATIVE NAMES: anarchy, feudalism, tribalism.
Category Uncertain

NS Nations!

Democracy/Republic
Fradustanis
Island of Rose, The
Pacitalia
Sarzonia
Space Union
Tekania (Constitutional Republic)


Communism/Socialist (I do realize these two are different, but there are some people out there who won't be able to differentiate their own nation between the two.)
Hallad

Monarchy/Constitutional Monarchy
Hamptonshire
Isselmere-Nieland
Praetonia
Random Kingdom

Dictatorship
Euroslavia
Iuthia
Roach-Busters

Triumvirate
Enn

Authoritarian
Layarteb
Zarbia (military junta)

National Socialism
Guffingford

Oligarchy
Samtonia
Transylvania, The

Technocracy
Sharina
Zarax

Governments in Separate Categories Themselves

Constitutional Monarchy
Classical political theory would divide the world something like this:
Rule of Law Rule by Whim
Monarchy Constitutional Monarchy Absolute Monarchy
Republic Democratic Republic Tyrant

This classification scheme was probably at its most valid between the American and Russian Revolutions, 1776-1917. Before that period, there were too few republics and constitutions to bother with, but after that period, monarchies went into precipitous decline. Also, during much of the twentieth century, a single category of tyranny is just too restrictive, ignoring as it does the way that oppressive republican governments exploded into a rich variety of fascists, communists, juntas, kleptocrats and sharia theocracies.

Totalitarianism
During the heyday of the Communist menace, 1917-1991, political theory tended to divide governments this way:

In American political discourse of that era, it was generally agree that, yes, free market democracy was good and totalitarianism was bad, but the middle ground was not nearly as clear. The debate over which regimes were the second greatest threat to civilization seemed to snag on the importance of property rights. The right wing - the "haves" - considered both types of rights to be equal, bringing socialism and authoritarianism into moral equilibrium. Thus, a case like Chile, where a dictator overthrew a socialist in 1973, was seen as a lateral move rather than a step backward. On the other hand, the left wing -- the "have-nots" -- judged regimes more purely on personal rights, which meant that socialism was morally equal to democracy, and the difference between totalitarian and authoritarian dictators was negligible. Therefore, supporting capitalist dictators like Batista, Somoza and Thiêu as the antidote to communist rebels like Castro, Ortega and Ho made no moral sense whatsoever.

In any case, it has always struck me as rather artificial to bundle Communism and Fascism into a single category called "Totalitarianism" -- rather like bundling birds and bats into the category of "flying creatures". Despite a few superficial similarities, they have very different origins, histories, structures and goals. I have chosen to map communism as distinctly different from fascism.

Fascism
• Pure fascism is rather rare. In fact, many scholars would call only Mussolini, Hitler and a few of their contemporary satellites fascist. In this case, it seems rather pointless to set up a whole category for a narrow subset of autocratic regimes which existed in a handful of countries for less than a single generation.
• On the other hand, metaphorical fascism is quite common -- so common, in fact, that I've heard just about every regime in history denounced as "fascist" at one time or another. In this case, it's almost meaningless.

Technocracy
Put simply, Technocracy is a form of government unlike any other. It is so different, in fact, that even comparing it to other forms of government we know of today is difficult. People often have many misconceptions about Technocracy and for many reasons.

First of all, whereas all other forms of government have their roots in political ideology, philosophy, and opinion, Technocracy has its roots in science. It is, in fact, more of a technology than a political idea (more on this here). It was developed by scientists, engineers, and other specialists seeking to understand the role of high-energy technology in our society (such as electrical generators, large earth movers, manufacturing plants, and fast, motorized transportation). This study, which encompassed over 10 years, divulged important information about how technology was affecting our society, and where these trends would take us. In short form, their conclusions were as follows:

The first is that there exists on the North American Continent a physical potential in resources to produce a high standard of goods and services for all citizens, and that the high-speed technology for converting these resources to use-forms in sufficient volume is already installed, and that the skilled personnel for operating it are present and available. Yet we have unprecedented insecurity, extensive poverty and rampant crime.

The second conclusion of Technocracy is that our current economic and political model, (called the Price System) can no longer function adequately as a method of production and distribution of goods. The invention of power machinery has made it possible to produce a plethora of goods with a relatively small amount of human labor. As machines displace men and women, however, purchasing power is destroyed, for if people cannot work for wages and salaries, they cannot buy goods. We find ourselves, then, in this paradoxical situation: the more we produce, the less we are able to consume. (more on this here)

The final basic conclusion is that a new distributive system must be instituted that is designed to satisfy the special needs of an environment of technological adequacy, and that this system must not in any way be associated with the extent of an individual's functional contribution to society.

The upshot of all this is that the scarcity model of the Price System worked well when there existed a natural scarcity. However, now that technology and rich natural resources have eliminated scarcity, an entirely new economic model is required. We have changed our methods of production from an argrarian model to a technological one, thus we must also change our method of distribution from an agrarian model to a technological one.

So what are the attributes of a Technocratic society?
There are many, but a few can be summarized here:

-A thoroughly scientific method of control of the technology of our continent.
-Democratic controls for all non-technical issues and decisions.
-Removal of methods of scarcity such as money, debt, value, and interest.
-Replacement of these methods with an empirical accounting of all physical resources, products, and services (called Energy Accounting).
-Productive capacity many orders of magnitude higher than currently possible, without requiring any new equipment.
-Decrease in human labor required to produce these amounts through proper use of automation.
-Higher standard of living for ALL citizens in terms of income, housing, health care, education, and leisure.
-Elimination or vast reduction of various social ills, such as poverty, crime, pollution, insecurity, and disease.

Theocracy
Theocracy, derived from two Greek words meaning "rule by the deity," is the name given to political regimes that claim to represent the Divine on earth both directly and immediately. The idea of direct and immediate representation is important for two reasons.

First, most governments throughout history and across cultures have claimed to be following their gods' designs or to be legitimated by a divine mandate. An example is the notion that kings rule by divine right. (This theory, which had been important in European politics in the sixteenth century, lost ground after the "Glorious Revolution" in England in 1688.) But governments in which the ruling and the priestly roles are separate are not considered to be theocracies. Second, the divine mandate must be interpreted by human beings in specific political contexts, such as wars or floods or famines. In theocracies the interpreters--who explain what these events mean--are the rulers. A number of ancient civilizations worshipped their kings as gods on earth, so the problem of interpretation was somewhat different. By definition, the king could not be wrong.

In theory, there is no reason why a theocracy and a democratic form of government are incompatible--vox populi, vox dei ("the voice of the people is the voice of God")--but historically those nations regarded as theocracies have been ruled by a theologically trained elite. This may be a council of clerics, or a charismatic leader may claim a special call from God and gain office by force of arms. The office might later become hereditary. The primary effort of government in a theocracy is to implement and enforce divine laws.

Juris Naturialism
The belief that there is a natural law that determines that results of human conduct and this law is higher than any government’s law. [Also, the belief in Higher Law – God]

Real Life Economies

What does the Economy mean?
Economics is not a word that many kids understand. To put it simply, economics is the study of how goods and services get produced (made) and how they are divided up and given to people. By goods and services, economists mean anything that can be bought and sold. Economists study how the things people need and want are made and brought to them. They also study how people and countries choose the things they buy from the many things they want. Economists also study the economic relations between nations.
Countries depend on other nations for good and services. Economists study these relationships. They look for ways to increase trade and help poor countries improve their economic condition. Nations trade with each other because no nation has all the things it needs for its population. Nations are afraid to produce only the things they can naturally produce well. This is because they do not want to be dependent on other countries in case of war with the other countries. Then trade would be cut off.

Nations restrict trade through tariffs and quotas. Tariffs are taxes placed on goods one nation trades with another. Quotas are limits put on the number of items allowed into a country. Some nations engage in free trade. Free trade is trade with no taxes or tariffs.

Trade within a country is only with one type of money, but if you trade with other countries, you will have to use different types of money. When this happens, businesses use an international banking system to exchange the money. If you are paid in foreign money, it is called a foreign bill of exchange. You then have to take the money to a bank or money exchange dealer and convert the money into what you need.
Until the 1970's, countries decided what their money was worth. Countries would lower the value of their money to increase foreign sales. In the early 1970's, some nations adopted a system called a floating exchange. Under this system, a nation's money value is based on demand for it.

Nations keep records of their financial dealings with other countries. If a country pays out more money than it receives, it has a deficit. If it receives more than it spends, it has a surplus. The United States suffers from huge trade deficits today because it has been unable to sell as much as it needs to buy abroad.
Three fourths of the world's population live in developing countries. Africa, Asia and Latin America have some of the worst areas of poverty. Developing countries are poor, and the people barely have enough to eat. Many live in shacks and have very few possessions. They are usually farmers but do not have good equipment for farming. People in these countries lack many of the resources needed for a comfortable life. They generally use what they have just to survive.
Wealthier nations give to poor countries to help them improve their economies. For example, the United States gives billions of dollars to needy nations in the form of loans and gifts. They also offer technical assistance to help train and educate other people. Some nations have experienced fast economic growth through their own efforts. The economies of Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Singapore are some of the fastest growing economies in the world.

GDP
GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is defined as the total value of all goods and services produced within that territory during a specified period (most commonly, per year). GDP differs from gross national product in excluding inter-country income transfers, in effect attributing to a territory the product generated within it rather than the incomes received in it.

Whereas nominal GDP refers to the total amount of money spent on GDP, real GDP refers to an effort to correct this number for the effects of inflation in order to estimate the sum of the actual quantity of goods and services making up GDP. The former is sometimes called "money GDP," while the latter is termed "constant-price" or "inflation-corrected" GDP -- or "GDP in base-year prices" (where the base year is chosen arbitrarily). See real vs. nominal in economics.

A common equation for GDP is:

GDP = consumption + investment + exports - imports

Economists will give a more complete definition of GDP to be a sum of four very important parts:

GDP = consumption + investment + government + net exports
(or simply GDP = C + I + G + NX)

where net exports = gross exports - gross imports

It is important to understand the meaning of each part:

C is consumption (or Consumer expenditures) in the economy.
I is defined as business investments in infrastructure. This is not to be confused with speculative investment in stock and bond markets.
G is the sum of all government expenditures. The relationship of this to that of GDP as a whole describes the theory of crowding out.
NX is the sum "net exports" in the economy (exports - imports).


Aggregate expenditures are calculated in a similar way, although the aggregate expenditures formula does not account for unplanned investment (left over inventory at the end of the reporting cycle) and is more commonly used by economic theorists.

List of countries by GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29)

GNP
Gross National Product (GNP) is the total value of final goods and services produced in a year by domestically owned factors of production.

Final goods are goods that are ultimately consumed rather than used in the production of another good. For example, a car sold to a consumer is a final good; the components such as tires sold to the car manufacturer are not; they are intermediate goods used to make the final good. The same tires, if sold to a consumer, would be a final good. Only final goods are included when measuring national income. If intermediate goods were included too, this would lead to double counting; for example, the value of the tires would be counted once when they are sold to the car manufacturer, and again when the car is sold to the consumer.

Only newly produced goods are counted. Transactions in existing goods, such as second-hand cars, are not included, as these do not involve the production of new goods.

Income is counted as part of GNP according to who owns the factors of production rather than where the production takes place. For example, in the case of a German-owned car factory operating in the US, the profits from the factory would be counted as part of German GNP rather than US GNP because the capital used in production (the factory, machinery, etc.) is German owned. The wages of the American workers would be part of US GNP, while the wages of any German workers on the site would be part of German GNP.

Types of World Economies

There are many different kinds of economies around the world, but they all fall into two basic categories. One category is the command economy which is also called central planning. It has strong government control. The other type is the free market economy which is also called capitalism. In this type of economy, there is very little government control. Currently, all real economies combine parts of capitalism with those of central planning. Each country around the world differs from one another in the amount they use the two systems. For example, the United States and Canada have economic systems that use very little government control so they are usually described as capitalistic.

Command economies have strong government control. So if you wanted to start your own business, you would have to get permission from the government. In a command economy, the government owns most of the industries and companies. One type of command economy is communism. True communism is a type of economic system that doesn't allow ownership of private property. Most of the command economies that existed in the world had strong central governments. These governments dictated how much was made and what was made by industry. The communists believed that life is a class struggle between workers and the owners of a industry or factory. In a communistic economy, goods were distributed on an as-needed-basis. In the command economy, the government makes the decisions as to what goods to supply to the people. The Soviet Union was an example of a communistic command economy. Many people think China is still a communist country. But they, and other countries like them, have given control over some of their economic activities back to the people.

The other basic type of economy is the free market or capitalistic economy. It is an economy that has very little government control. So if you wanted to start your own business, you would not have to get permission from the government. In a free market economy, the consumer decides what they want to buy. A consumer is a customer. The law of supply and demand is what drives the free market economy. Supply and demand is what sets the prices of goods and services in the free market economy. As supply goes up the prices go down. When the demand goes up the prices go up. Due to low government control, people are free to spend their money the way they want to. People can take the risk of starting their own business and losing money or starting their own business and making lots of money. People like James Ford Bell and Will Kellogg took risks in starting their own breakfast cereal businesses. Some examples of countries with a free market economy are The United States of America, Germany, and England.

In the world today free market economies have social programs such as the Social Security System in The United States. Command economies like China are introducing free market economies into their economy. With the information age upon us, only time will tell where the world economies are headed.

Marxist Economy Description
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/marx/marx0.html
http://catalogue.bized.ac.uk/roads/marxec.html
http://www.marxism.org.uk/pack/economics.html
http://vlc.knowledgecollegetutors.com/eco1.htm

Capitalist Economy Description
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/sustecon/others/capitalist.htm
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/capitalist_economy
http://economics.about.com/od/outlineoftheuseconomy/

Not all monarchies pass from father to son, some just pass to the first-born heir. There's another form of monarchy that has no RL counter-part, and that's a system where the mother passes her title to the daughter.

EDIT: There's also the matrilineal system, although I can't think of any kingdom in recent memory that's used that as a way of passing the crown.

Actually, almost every 'Communist' country that has ever existed has been more of a fundimentalist oligarchy practicing state capitalism. CHina, now, is simply a capitalist fundimentalist oligarchy, with the barist trappings of communism. Communism is really a combination of an economic and political system, not merely economic. In a true communism, there is no government at all, everyone simply works in harmony and goods naturally get transfered to where they are needed. Naturally, this never occured in the Soviet Union, and the soviets acknowledged that... they didn't think of themselves as communist yet, but they were working towards communism, and the day when the Politburo could be abolished. It never happened.

You've also overlooked Elected Monarchies. There are a couple of those in NS (Hamptonshire is one of them) and currently Vatican City is ruled by an elected absolute monarch (the Pope).

You've also overlooked Elected Monarchies. There are a couple of those in NS (Hamptonshire is one of them) and currently Vatican City is ruled by an elected absolute monarch (the Pope).

Ahh, yes, my bad. Thanks for the reminder. I'm actually going to research NS, and add an NS aspect to each and every one of these categories. NSWiki should be able to help with that. :)

EDIT: Added section for Elected Monarchies.

Actually, almost every 'Communist' country that has ever existed has been more of a fundimentalist oligarchy practicing state capitalism. CHina, now, is simply a capitalist fundimentalist oligarchy, with the barist trappings of communism. Communism is really a combination of an economic and political system, not merely economic. In a true communism, there is no government at all, everyone simply works in harmony and goods naturally get transfered to where they are needed. Naturally, this never occured in the Soviet Union, and the soviets acknowledged that... they didn't think of themselves as communist yet, but they were working towards communism, and the day when the Politburo could be abolished. It never happened.
Of course it never happened. To do so would require beneficiaries of the system to voluntarily give up as a unit the privileges and gains that they were reaping. The flaw in the system is it requires people to care as much or more about those they never met than themselves and their personal relations. Communism works perfectly in familial and tribal units, but above that organizations develop to bleed profits and wealth. You could even make a strong case that that's how modern capitalism got it's start.

Now includes NS nations, and their government.

(Awesome work as always, Euroslavia! :))

Uber-Tag

(OOC: And thanks for putting me on the dictatorship list! :D)

Very well done, and remember what I said on msn!

Nice job! I'm still waitin for you to add some of the other eco systems I was tellin ya about last night though... as well as Republic (Particularly Federal Constitutional Republic)

But none the less, great job!

Sticky this!

Well done... this screams Sticky in my opinion.

You forgot technocracy as a form of government. Niot a big error, but it is a form, so....


Oh, and feel free to put Samtonia down under oligarchy.

I would add The United Kingdom of Isselmere-Nieland and the Democratic Imperium of Praetonia as Constitutional Monarchies.

Woohoo I have my own category! Thanks Euro :)

.::Updated::.

Hamptonshire is a Constitutional Federal Elective Monarchy. So put me in what category you so choose.

I've got an elected monarch, a federal system of government, and a constitution to bind it all together.

Hurray for me.

Hamptonshire is a Constitutional Federal Elective Monarchy. So put me in what category you so choose.

I've got an elected monarch, a federal system of government, and a constitution to bind it all together.

Hurray for me.

Monarchy it is. :)

My government system is in my country's name. :P

We're a capitalist-libertarian, constitutional democratic republic. Yay for that! :)

*sigh* and I had a nice post going before the forum went capoot for a minute... dangnamit!

Ok, what I was gonna say is that I'm trying to find an official definition of Federal Constitutional Republic for you to post... but for now, I'll give you some info on Austrian Economics and Laissez faire to post...

Austrian Economics:
The economics of the juris naturalists [Classical Liberalists - not Liberal, not Civil Liberalists] is called "Austrian" Economics because the founders of this viewpount were from Austria.

Austrian economics is the modern version of "Laissez faire". The origin of the French term laissez faire is instructive. During the 1600's, Louis XIV wanted to see business conditions improved and poverty reduced. Maybe government controls were in force but the economy wasn't working well, so he told finance minister Jean Baptiste Colbert to do something about it. Colbert called a meeting of French businessmen to askwhat the government could do to improve the economy. The businessmen conferred and came up with the answer, if you want to improve the economy, 'laissez nous faire.' ('Leave us alone').
[u]Are You Liberal? Conservative? or Confused?[u] Pages 83-84; By Richard Maybury (AKA "Uncle Eric")

More info to be posted later... g2g

Hmmm, well done.

VA: Your assertions about real life Communism are correct, but not in line with theoretical Communist economics (based on a state economy version of Keynesian or Neo-Keynesian theories (Demand Prediction), so thus it is better to describe the theory rather than the practicality since a lot of the Communist regiemes on here would be impossible in RL, in sheer economic terms.

Euro: You can add me as an example of a Theocratic Capitalist, it's effectively meritocratic oligarchy with Religious motivations... :D

The thing, I think you have left out is the obvious Black/Grey Markets, now I am happy to write this if you would like to save yourself the energy since having written that you could do with a rest.

Otherwise, excellent work, it should be stickied. You haven't gone into huge detail and kept it reasonably simple, I commend you sir.

Oligarchy:
1. a political system governed by a few people
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
2. the ruling class. Usually a small group of wealthy individuals.
oregonstate.edu/dept/anthropology/glossary2.htm
3. – a government controlled by a small group to serve their own purposes.
www.whitehall.k12.mi.us/curriculum/socialstudies/glossaryofterms.htm

I think this my nation's government but I could be wrong. So, I will see if it is. The Council of Twelve run everything in the Transylvania. Is that like Oligarchy?

Hmmm, well done.
Euro: You can add me as an example of a Theocratic Capitalist, it's effectively meritocratic oligarchy with Religious motivations... :D

The thing, I think you have left out is the obvious Black/Grey Markets, now I am happy to write this if you would like to save yourself the energy since having written that you could do with a rest.

Otherwise, excellent work, it should be stickied. You haven't gone into huge detail and kept it reasonably simple, I commend you sir.

Thank you for your kind words. It's up to you whether you'd like to write that part in or not. It would certainly be appreciated. :)

I think this my nation's government but I could be wrong. So, I will see if it is. The Council of Twelve run everything in the Transylvania. Is that like Oligarchy?

That sounds about right. I'll add ya.

I've added this to An Emporium of Helpful Threads and I highly recommend you add it to your Guide to NationStates. ^_^

Added technocracy, theocracy, and constitutional monarchy to the first post. More to be added, as well as a detailed breakdown in the second post.

I have absolutely no idea what category my government falls into. Basically, it is ruled by the people, and shaped by polls. A network of computers known as the Core act on the results of these, and there is an elected president, but his job is similar to Zaphod Beeblebrox's as he has no extra power - he is only there to represent the ideas of the citizens. Like a constitutional elected monarchy.

I have absolutely no idea what category my government falls into. Basically, it is ruled by the people, and shaped by polls. A network of computers known as the Core act on the results of these, and there is an elected president, but his job is similar to Zaphod Beeblebrox's as he has no extra power - he is only there to represent the ideas of the citizens. Like a constitutional elected monarchy.

That sounds exactly as you say, a constitutional monarchy. I'll add ya.

I would have thought that a constitutional monarchy isn't really a form of government as it usually doesn't govern anything, and complements another form, like Britain's constitutional monarchy complements the Westminster system.

Does the fact that RK's symbolic president is elected by the people change the type, or is it still a constitutional monarchy?

Also, what category does the whole "people rule the country" system fall into? I don't think that it's communism as people still own property. Or am I talking about Marxism? Politics confuses me. :(

How could you not add me to the category of a Republic!? I'm the most Democratic Republic on NS!

Oh and nice guide...

Ok, what I was gonna say is that I'm trying to find an official definition of Federal Constitutional Republic, which is what American was originally founded as (The founder fathers did not lay it down as a democracy, but rather a republic. Similar, but not the same…) for you to post... but for now, I'll give you some info on Austrian Economics and Laissez faire to post...

Austrian Economics:
The economics of the juris naturalists [Classical Liberalists - not Liberal, not Civil Liberalists] is called "Austrian" Economics because the founders of this viewpount were from Austria.

Austrian economics is the modern version of "Laissez faire". The origin of the French term laissez faire is instructive. During the 1600's, Louis XIV wanted to see business conditions improved and poverty reduced. Maybe government controls were in force but the economy wasn't working well, so he told finance minister Jean Baptiste Colbert to do something about it. Colbert called a meeting of French businessmen to askwhat the government could do to improve the economy. The businessmen conferred and came up with the answer, if you want to improve the economy, 'laissez nous faire.' ('Leave us alone').

For the first 150 years of the United States history, laissez faire was the dominate economic and legal viewpoint, which is why the country became legendary as the most free and prosperous land every known. Not that laissez faire was ever totally in operation, there were some taxes, controls and special privileges, but this ‘land of opportunity’ came closer to applying faissez faire than any other before or since. By 1900 this small agrarian nation had become an industrial powerhouse, the ‘land of opportunity,’ envied around the world.
Are You Liberal? Conservative? or Confused? Pages 83-84; By Richard Maybury (AKA "Uncle Eric")

Laissez faire:
From the French, Laissez nous faire, meaning leave us alone. Says the benefits of government’s economic controls are less than the total costs. Government should do nothing in the economy except enforce contracts and protect against violence and theft.
Are You Liberal? Conservative? or Confused? Page 129 By Richard Maybury (AKA "Uncle Eric")

Also, a little something for government/political views:
Juris Naturialism:
The belief that there is a natural law that determines that results of human donduct and this law is higher than any government’s law. [Also, the belief in Higher Law – God]
Are You Liberal? Conservative? or Confused? Page 128; By Richard Maybury (AKA "Uncle Eric")

Classical Liberal:
Juris Naturalist. One who believes that a country should have a small, weak government, and free markets, and that the indicidual is endowed by his Creator with inalienable rights for his life, liberty and property. Also, one who believes in Natural law and common law, or higher law.
Are You Liberal? Conservative? or Confused? Page 126; By Richard Maybury (AKA "Uncle Eric")

Juris Naturalism is basically included in Classical Liberal. America’s founding fathers were Classical Liberals, and based this country, the bill of rights, and the constitution on such beliefs.

Amazing! Great work on an intriguing subject!

ViZion: Thanks for the assistance. :) I'll add all of that right now.

Well done... this screams Sticky in my opinion.

Everything Euro does screams Sticky, IMO.

.::BUMP::.

I'm a Constitutional Imperium. Imperator has complete control over everything except the making of laws. He can propose laws and veto them though.

That sounds about right. I'll add ya.

Thanks. Now, I will join the ranks with Samtonia.

ViZion: Thanks for the assistance. :) I'll add all of that right now.
No prob... :)
And did I hear somebody say STICKY!!?

No prob... :)
And did I hear somebody say STICKY!!?

Yes, this does need to be STICKY.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8564955#post8564955
^^ Please sticky! thread...

List me as a Representative Democracy (republic, whatever)

There is a king, technically, but he's been out of power for too long to even be considered a constitutional monarch. It's known that the military is more powerful than the civilian administration. Anything beyond that is wild speculation. The truth is known by a few, or perhaps by no-one.

I think of Kindura as having a "pawnshop government" in that no-one knows where power comes from or where it is going.

My nation has a fairly complicated system of government, which I can't quite fully classify under one heading. One one hand, the Prime is granted ultimate authority, veto power over all legislation, is the highest ranking military officer of all branches of military, and is elected for life by the previous Prime, shortly before their death. I suppose in some ways it's similar to an elective non-hereditary monarchy, ala North Korea.

On the other hand, there is a Senate of over 1000 seats which governs local policy within their constituancies. The senate no longer holds any power over federal law, and has no veto power over the whim of the Prime. Senators are elected by popular democratic voting processes, and the Senate is headed by a Grand Council of twelve Senators, elected by their peers to petition the Prime if needed. I have no idea how this would be classified.

DAMN!!!! NOW THIS IS IMPRESSIVE


Hey could you add me to Authoritarian states?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian
I think the authoritarian definition could be updated.

My nation has a fairly complicated system of government, which I can't quite fully classify under one heading. One one hand, the Prime is granted ultimate authority, veto power over all legislation, is the highest ranking military officer of all branches of military, and is elected for life by the previous Prime, shortly before their death. I suppose in some ways it's similar to an elective non-hereditary monarchy, ala North Korea.

On the other hand, there is a Senate of over 1000 seats which governs local policy within their constituancies. The senate no longer holds any power over federal law, and has no veto power over the whim of the Prime. Senators are elected by popular democratic voting processes, and the Senate is headed by a Grand Council of twelve Senators, elected by their peers to petition the Prime if needed. I have no idea how this would be classified.

Your government is definitely unlike what RL has seen. I think, in your case, it would just be best to create a custom name of the government, for your nation.

Damn Euro, do you ever stop helping people :P

Keep up the goodwork man!

.::BUMP::.

Good job, man!

I'm an Imperial government, I guess that falls under monarchy.

Bump.

I'm a Federal Repulic but starting to transform into a Technocracy. Right now just label me under Federal Republic. Great Job, though,. Thanks!

Your government is definitely unlike what RL has seen. I think, in your case, it would just be best to create a custom name of the government, for your nation.

Almost sounds like an early version of the Parlimentary system. But yeah, it's original.

.::BUMP::.

Enn is ruled by a Triumvirate, in which three people hold equal power, and make decisions between themselves. Similar to, but not quite the same as, an autocracy. Might be an idea to add something about triumvirates in the Government Types - Real-World Rome was twice ruled by Triumvirates.

Enn is ruled by a Triumvirate, in which three people hold equal power, and make decisions between themselves. Similar to, but not quite the same as, an autocracy. Might be an idea to add something about triumvirates in the Government Types - Real-World Rome was twice ruled by Triumvirates.

Great idea, I'll add that right now.

Tekania is a Constitutional Republic (Representative democracies, founded on a "Social Contract"/"Constitution")

Zarax is now a Technocracy, you can add me under that cathegory.

Communism/Socialist (I do realize these two are different, but there are some people out there who won't be able to differentiate their own nation between the two.)
Hallad

Yes, this thread deserve sticky-hood.

I'd say the difference between "Socialism" and "Communism" is the incorrect terminology applied in many cases to differint adherants who claim the form. Much as "Republic" can denote differing types.

I'd say socialism tends to be more of an economic system, and generally is associated with a democratic form (representative or direct)... Communism tends to fall into two differing extremes. It is claimed by "anarchic" states, in which there is no central authority (Libertaire/Anarchist[tm])... Or to totalitarian states, where the massess are ordered by a central Politbureau.

So, I'd probably avoid classifying anything as "communism" in the sense of the word in normal use, and apply differing criteria, in a "tree" system...

Level 1: Economy
Feudalistic - Based upon class distinction, ownership by "Lords" who exercize political power over the masses.
Capitalistic - Open ownership to the people... No definitive class distinctions... Non operative tie with political power.
Socialistic - Ownership to degrees by the government for the people. Non operative tie with political power.

Level 2: Governmental Form
Anarchial - No sigle rulling authority.
Monarchial - Singular rulling authority vested in an "executive"
Oligarchial - Non sigular rulling authority, vested in a panel or "council" for the people.

Level 3: Governmental Function
Totalitarian - Executors represent themselves and the people. People have no direct power over the government.
Representative - Executives choosen by the people to represent interests to the governmental authority or between each other.
Democratic - No sigular executives... All people represent themselves towards one another within the government. All choices by the people.
Anarchic - No executives or representation. People deal with one another at personal level. No authority in control over the state.

In my state, all industry is randomly grouped into syndicates of roughly equal economical power. All worker and all owner of industries which are subject of a given syndicate are thought member of this syndicate and hold a vote. The day-to-day issues of the syndicates are made by an elected council and dicisions of greater importance are made by a secret vote of all members of a syndicate. While the majority of all industry is owned privatly the syndicates impose regulations onto them. The syndicates hold the legislature, judiciary and executive over there members. The exact realization of this is left to the individual syndicates. Each syndicate sends one representive to a grand council, in which nation-wide issues are discussed and where the syndicates can coordinate each other and settle conflicts. The grand council also votes a speaker who represents the nation to other nations.

OOC: Good job! Another wonderful work to add to realism and detail here. Should be stickied.

Mine is complicated. It is a Limited Democratic Socialist Republic with a Command Economy that is controlled by the government which has a Senate but with High Father being the veto power and leader for life. That is a problem because all indications point to High Father being 189 years old, which is impossible of course. Or is it?

Takania, that didn't make a lot of sense...

Great job, Euro! In fact, so great I don't have a lot to add about forms of government(If I do, I'll be sure to let you know).

However, there are economies that do not fall into the Command/Plan economy vs. Capitalist/Free market economy division.

For instance, there is the gift economy, in which goods and services are exchanged on a Quid pro Qou basis. This was(mostly) used in times past, but is actually the political ideal of many people, most notably anarchists and anarcho-communists. Assuming this is more than an ideal and can be realised, this sort of economy would have no money, markets or centralised economic planning. Some economists suggest that a gift economy would be key to solve the cycle of poverty!

Also, there are such things as energy and credit economies; but these are not realized IRL, and are mainly of interest to future tech nations. I can expound on it if it has any interest.

I'm a limited democracy.

The Head of the Syndicates, Alexander J.C. Witoslawski, has veto power over any resolution passed by the Consul of the United Workers. Also, he rules until the end of his life and after he dies his heir will be chosen upon direct male lineage.

However, the workers of Witoslawski Syndicates elect the Consul of United Workers every year, and the CUW has power over many things, including Witoslawski Syndicates spending, foreign relations, and laws. Then again, A.J.C. Witoslawski can veto anything he doesn't like...

OOC: Euroslavia, that is incredible.

But I have a question. What would I be called if I elect a Supreme General, and he has power within the bounds of a constitution? As in, he can do things with no vote held, but most things need to be voted on. Oh, and he/she can be impeaced by democratic vote at any time.

If your Supreme General is rather powerful then I guess you'd be a Limited Democracy also...

If your Supreme General is rather powerful then I guess you'd be a Limited Democracy also...

Well, he's pretty much allowed to do whatever he wants inside a constitution. So Limited Democracy.

The Klackon Kingdom of Nattin is a MONARCHY.

I believe the Dominion of Hexalot falls under Oligarchial Technocracy, since the Great Houses controls the present government and also Hexalot's largest industries; while developing and implenmenting cutting edge technology using advance IT and bio engineering.

BTW, the government is being run like a corporation.

Participatory economics, often abbreviated parecon, is a proposed economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the production, consumption and allocation of resources in a given society. Proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalist market economies and also an alternative to centrally planned socialism or coordinatorism, it is described as "an anarchistic economic vision",[1] and it could be considered a form of socialism as under parecon, the means of production are owned by the workers. It emerged from the work of activist and political theorist Michael Albert and of radical economist Robin Hahnel, beginning in the 1980s and 1990s.

The underlying values that parecon seeks to implement are equity, solidarity, diversity, workers' self-management and efficiency. (Efficiency here means accomplishing goals without wasting valued assets.) It proposes to attain these ends mainly through the following principles and institutions:

- workers' and consumers' councils utilizing self-managerial methods for decision making,
- balanced job complexes,
- remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and
- participatory planning.

Albert and Hahnel stress that parecon is only meant to address an alternative economic theory and must be accompanied by equally important alternative visions in the fields of politics, culture and kinship. The authors have also discussed elements of anarchism in the field of politics, polyculturalism in the field of culture, and feminism in the field of family and gender relations as being possible foundations for future alternative visions in these other spheres of society. Stephen R. Shalom has begun work on a participatory political vision he calls "parpolity".

For more see wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon

Epic gravedig, much?

United People's Republics of Punckeds:
Economy - Parecon with Socialist elements.
Governmental Form - Prime Secretary - Elected and Controlled by People's Palace. He can bring in proposals of resolutions.
Governmental Function - People's Palace is assembly of representatives of the provinces. They are secretaries of People's Hoses wich is assembly of representatives of Minor People Houses which is direct democracy. Many resolutions is voted in referendum. - direct democracy.