[Starvid]

Reading the Hirsch report I thought it interesting to see the focus that was put on government intervention in the economy. Hirsch talks about massive government intervention through crash programmes to cope with the coming scarcity of oil. This is something not heard of in America since WW2 and the New Deal, so I thought it might be interesting to read up a bit on dirigisme and the country it has been used most.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wikipedia', '[')b]Dirigisme (from the French) (in English also "dirigism" although per the OED both spellings are used) is an economic term designating an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence.

While the term has been applied occasionally to centrally planned economies, where the government effectively controls production and allocation of resources (in particular, to certain socialist economies where the national government owns the means of production), it originally had neither of these meanings when applied to France, and generally designates a mainly capitalist economy with a strong economic participation by government. Most modern economies are dirigiste to some degree – for instance, governmental action may be exercised through subsidizing research and developing new technologies, or through government procurement, especially military.

[...]

France

Because French industry prior to the Second World War was weak, due to fragmentation, the French government encouraged mergers and the formation of "national champions", large industry groups backed by the government.

Two areas where the French government sought greater control were infrastructure and the transportation system. The French government owned the national railway company SNCF, the national electricity utility EDF, the national natural gas utility GDF, the national airline Air France; phone and postal services were operated as the PTT administration. Interestingly, the government chose to devolve the construction of most autoroutes (freeways) to semi-private companies rather than to administer them itself. Other areas where the French government directly intervened were defense, nuclear and aerospace industries (Aérospatiale).

This development was marked by volontarisme, or the will to overcome all difficulties (War-related devastation, lack of natural resources...) through willpower and ingenuity. For instance, following the 1973 energy crisis, the saying "In France we don't have oil, but we have ideas" was coined. Voluntarism showed an obsession with the modernization of the country, resulting in a variety of ambitious plans imposed by the state. Examples of this trend include the extensive use of nuclear energy (close to 80% of French electrical consumption), the Minitel, an early online system for the masses, and the TGV, a high-speed rail network.

The development of French dirigisme coincided with the development of meritocratic technocracy: the École Nationale d'Administration supplied the state with high-level administrators, while leadership positions in industry were staffed with Corps of Mines state engineers and other personnel trained at the École Polytechnique.

[...]

Dirigisme flourished under the center-right governments of Charles de Gaulle and Georges Pompidou. In those times, the policy was viewed as a middle way between the American policy of little state involvement and the Soviet policy of total state control. In 1981, Socialist president François Mitterrand was elected, promising even more state intervention in the economy; his government soon nationalized industries and banks. However, in 1983 the initial bad economic results forced the government to renounce dirigisme and start the era of rigueur ("rigour"). Subsequent governments never have considered economic dirigisme again, though some of its traits remain.

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'H')irsch talks about massive government intervention through crash programmes to cope with the coming scarcity of oil.

[jaws]

Dirigisme is the way of the past. It's just one more variant of government interventionism. It's aim is to subvert the market demand for the government's demand.

It wrecked France and now they're actively trying to dismantle it, facing huge resistance from labor unions (who are largely responsible for wrecking the country in the first place).

The idea that a government crash program is going to save America is not only ridiculous, it is a contradiction in terms. It was a government crash program that ruined America and caused its oil dependence.

[Free]

Lol, watch out guys, you could have just as well waved the red flag in front of an enraged bull as mentioned government intervention were jaws can read you...

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')o the U.S. Marshal plan didn't work? We really didn't put man on the moon? I don't think that knee-jerk antigovernmentism is a useful solution either.

Truth is if we wait for the magic of the marketplace to fix this situation then we are truly lost. The modern marketplace is about creating dreams and nightmares so it can sell the suckers trinkets. The marketplace is incapable of acting proactively. The marketplace cares about consumer crap, not solutions. Whereas government for and of the people has indeed performed miracles. See above. Or giant boondoggles like the interstate highway system

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'h')ow about advanced ceramics? metalurgy? carbon fibers?

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '.')..
The free market is the only way that we can fix society, because the free market means that you act with your own resources, not politicians owned by lobbyists.

[gg3]

When I hear the word "regulation" my first reaction is to cringe, and my second reaction is to get bloody pissed.

And yet, in terms of the crises we're facing, we simply do not know what will succeed and what will fail.

So let's try the experiment, comparing one country to another, and see what works. The Scandanavian countries have traditionally been the most socialistic Western countries; France and the UK somewhere in the middle; the US more toward laissez-faire; and Germany and Japan have had a different type of pubilc/private partnership based in part on much stronger government support for private commerce.

Anywhere we can find a viable solution, we should implement it. Some of it may be market-based, some government-based, some completely grassroots. At this point we've basically already screwed the proverbial pooch (for non-English speakers: bought the farm, cashed in our chips, gone over the edge) so anything is preferable to the present state of doing not-much-more-than-nothing. 'Tis better to try but fail gloriously, than to fail to try ignominiously.

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')o the U.S. Marshal plan didn't work? We really didn't put man on the moon? I don't think that knee-jerk antigovernmentism is a useful solution either.

Truth is if we wait for the magic of the marketplace to fix this situation then we are truly lost. The modern marketplace is about creating dreams and nightmares so it can sell the suckers trinkets. The marketplace is incapable of acting proactively. The marketplace cares about consumer crap, not solutions. Whereas government for and of the people has indeed performed miracles. See above. Or giant boondoggles like the interstate highway system

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', 'O')f course while you collectivists plot and plan for the government to do something to save you, you will not be doing much to save yourselves. Somehow I think that the greater part of the less than 1 billion survivors will be individuals who have a strong drive for independence and self sufficiency. The next 50 years are likely to be a great pruning of the human species by good old mother nature, so maybe at the end of that time people will understand that survival of the fittest is always working and collectivism is not very fit.

[Starvid]

I am quite aware of the inefficiency of government. I do live in the country with the highest taxes in the world (51 % of GDP).

BUT!

Dirigisme did work in France at reducing oil use. The kind of massive centrally planned infrastructure projects that are IMHO needed to cope with peak oil, like the French nuclear and TGV projects, did happen under dirigisme.

When it comes to building a few massive structures, like rail and power plants, (technocratic) government can be just as good or even better than the market.

Why?

To answer that question we must understand what is the strength of the market economy. That strength is that decisions on what should be produced is the aggregate of billions of small decisions made by millions of people. This will always be better at gauging the demand for hats and forks than any government agency, no matter how skilled it might be.

But massive projects are different. Here we do not have millions of people in the decisions loop. We are talking about a few dozen or a few hundred power plants, a handful or a dozen rail lines, and hence, maybe a few dozen or a few hundred board members to decide on these projects.

There is no reason these few hundred people should be better at gauging what should be built than a few hundred skilled government experts.

The American natural gas/power crisis, and the lack of Swedish/French equivalents of it, is a good example of this.

On the other hand, the German power situation is an example of the opposite.

Here we see that it is crucial that those in charge are very competent (ie not German greens but Swedish and French nonpolitical technocrats).

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'h')ow about advanced ceramics? metalurgy? carbon fibers?

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'D')irigisme did work in France at reducing oil use. The kind of massive centrally planned infrastructure projects that are IMHO needed to cope with peak oil, like the French nuclear and TGV projects, did happen under dirigisme.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'D')irigisme did work in France at reducing oil use. The kind of massive centrally planned infrastructure projects that are IMHO needed to cope with peak oil, like the French nuclear and TGV projects, did happen under dirigisme.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'A')nd this is why dirigisme is only useful if it is implemented by skilled nonpolitical technocrats and not politicians. Otherwise it will create more problems than it will solve.

Ponder the words "meritocratic technocracy".

On the profit issue, that might not be a major problem. Link the wages of the government experts to how well they solve the problems they are supposed to solve, and presto you have a profit motive.

[RacerJace]

Benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government but unfortunately it is almost impossible to assure full and true benevolence. One’s ideals for the people may be viewed by another as a form of fascism. And if a nations people grant totalitarian power to a single controlling government and ultimately a single leader there is an overwhelming temptation to corrupt that power for personal gain or the gain of those that may have strong influence.

My point however, is that I believe a strong leadership is and will be the only way out of a crisis. A way of uniting the people and providing stability and direction or else there will be chaos and civil war. Dirigisme sounds like it approaches this form of governing more than any other example I’ve heard of. But there will always be winners and losers when the government policy covers larger populations of people. Therefore my vision of the future would be smaller fragmented localised governments that have power that do achieve something closer to benevolent dictatorship but that are not subservient to a national government. National government would provide the platform for co-operation between local governing bodies… and this starts to sound like a simplified liberalist democracy structure with many representatives at the national level.

I’m fairly ignorant on the subject of politics and government, just though I’d share my thoughts.

.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '
')The only way to determine how well the experts are solving the problem is through the profitability of the company. What you are arguing for is a government-owned, for-profit free market business. It is pointless for the government to own such an enterprise as it could more easily operate completely separate from the government.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'P')rofitability is not at all the only way to measure sucess. It could just as well be: complete project X within time Y, or reduce oil consumption to Z within time Y.