State Capitalism-Laissez Faire

[wille 12]

What happens if you, when the game starts in 1936 choose a government that embraces state capitalism, to get your industry started and then maybe 5-10 years later you want a Laissez Faire government. What happens to the factories and the railroads? Are they sold or do they just change owner?

[Nikolai]

You no longer get full control over your industry?

[wille 12]

Yes but I mean what happens to the industry that already exists? Does it simply change owner overnight, is it sold to capitalists, aristocrats or rich artisans over time or is it sold instantly to them?

[Colon]

Factories aren't 'owned' by anyone. They are just built by either capitalists or the state.

[Sult]

It is of my impression from the dev comments in development diaries, that the capitalists always get a slice of the profit from factories, just that they get a bigger slice under laissez faire and a smaller slice under state capitalism (I don't know if the state gets any of that profit directly under state capitalism or if it's shared more equally). You may neither subsidise factories under laissez faire. As said, factories and railroads aren't owned by anyone.

[wille 12]

OK, thnx!

[Hardcore_gamer]

No one owns the factories, the government policy only decides whether you as the player have to manually build them or if the capitalists build them on their own.

But what are the benefits and disadvantages for each?

[Southern Min]

But what are the benefits and disadvantages for each?

In Vic1, laissez-faire economy has higher efficiency in factories than state capitalism, socialism or communism. The disadvantage of laissez-faire is, IMO, that you can't control the factory/railway building or expansion.

[Brownbeard]

Laissez faire - higher overall efficiency in terms of both profit in investment, but you may end up dependent on foreign trade and vulnerable to embargos and blockades
State capitalism - higher level of control over the direction of development, less profit, but you can design your industrial economy as you think is best.

It all depends on country and style of play, but ussually, laissez faire is better for pacifists and economic growth while state capitalism is better for warmonger/imperialist.

[Austen]

My Liberal party-dominated British Empire shall be laissez-faire all the way!

Austen.

[Orinsul]

im sure state capitalism will have effects other than being worse but controlled, there must be advantages and disadvantages to both for AI too

[Baneslave]

im sure state capitalism will have effects other than being worse but controlled, there must be advantages and disadvantages to both for AI too

National AI can still have different priorities than POP AI.

[Will Lucky]

My Liberal party-dominated British Empire shall be laissez-faire all the way!

Austen.

I'll drink to that, Laissez Faire British Empire ftw.

[Hardcore_gamer]

im sure state capitalism will have effects other than being worse but controlled, there must be advantages and disadvantages to both for AI too

I hope so. Countries should not be denied any chance of being economically powerful simply because they aren't capitalist states with free market economies.

[besaccia]

In my opinion Intervensionsm has the perfect balance between Private inversions and state inversions.

[Rhyus]

I hope so. Countries should not be denied any chance of being economically powerful simply because they aren't capitalist states with free market economies.

I agree as i always like to have control in games like this and i wouldn't like to be punished for that

[amcl]

I hope so. Countries should not be denied any chance of being economically powerful simply because they aren't capitalist states with free market economies.

Was there a major power in the Victoria period which underwent industrialisation (rather than expansion of an existing industrial base as in the Soviet Union) as anything other than a "laissez faire" or "interventionist" economy? I cannot think of even one.

[Sarmatia1871]

Was there a major power in the Victoria period which underwent industrialisation (rather than expansion of an existing industrial base as in the Soviet Union) as anything other than a "laissez faire" or "interventionist" economy? I cannot think of even one.

Not really, as the ideas of (or machinery for) having full state control over the economy didn't really exist until the very end of the period, when most countries had already industrialized.

The overwhelming majority of places would be classed as "interventionist" though, albeit to varying degrees.

[gadajs]

Germany Industrialized massively during the time frame. They did so under a pretty rigid interventionist stance.

[Grosshaus]

Was there a major power in the Victoria period which underwent industrialisation (rather than expansion of an existing industrial base as in the Soviet Union) as anything other than a "laissez faire" or "interventionist" economy? I cannot think of even one.

German/Prussia was already mentioned. Heavy industry in Imperial Russia was very much for the military and railroads, which on the other hand were owned by the state. Japanese industrialisation was very centralised as well