How to run a Self-Sufficient Economy (Autarky)?

Lets say a country from the EU wanted to break away and wanted to create it's own currency, and decided to become self-sufficient, an Autarky. First, how would an Autarky be ran to have a good economy, and Second, how would it circulate the Euro out to replace it with it's own currency?

 

If you mean self sufficient, meaning your economy is robust and doesn't need bail outs, that can be done. If you mean self sufficient, meaning you won't trade with other countries, limits your sources of income due to the lack of raw materials.

As a start:

For a robust economy you need is a population that produces as much, or more than it consumes. A trade deficit with some countries, is offset with a trade surplus with other countries.

Maintain a small government that is productive business friendly (and financial institution hostile), and corruption intolerant. To minimize the incentive for government sanctioned corruption:

Limit laws and regulations to those that protect the commons, not corporate profits. Require laws and regulations to be renewed every 5 years (or terminated by a public vote), so the bad ones can be weeded out easily.

Government income comes from sales tax at the consumer purchase, no tax on business, or imports. Gevernment is limited to a percent of total sales. federal government, 5%, state governments, 5% and local governments to 10%. Government must run with a surplus, no borrowing.

To minimize the favors politicans need to pay back, elections are funded from taxes - no contributions from PAC's, special interest, or even the public. ​

 

Not all countries on the continent are in the EU. A lot of the wealthy prosperous ones aren't. That's why they didn't want to throw in with the likes of Greece. Just do whatever they are doing. Nothing theoretical about it.

 

That is one of the main reasons so little appears to be happening in terms of decision making .
An exit is incredibly complex , though switching currency from Euro back to Drachma is in itself no more comp-lex than the original move from Drachma to Euro .But it is very costly.

 

It can't. It will be characterised by relatively stagnancy, with oligopoly within the country encouraging a lack of innovation

 

In that case , would you agree that Russia broadly supports that idea , but that China completely undermines it?
And if not , why?

 

Neither are examples of autarky.

 

Well if they are not ( convenient ) , where are they ?
And is the" Congo " a predictive and therefore useful tool ?

 

It would help if you knew what an autarky is. Look it up. It will reduce the chances of asking silly questions!

 

Cheeky . I wil have to check whether I introduced the word when much younger .
What you were careful never to do was answer a single question. Of course there are no worthwhile economies that can meet the definition , even assuming it was desirable to do so .
The countries I named are all ones capable of fitting the definition and it is largely their own fault that they have failed -- none more so than Russia .

Whether Oligopoly would then result is debatable . The evidence from countries like those quoted does not particularly support the idea as far as it can be guaged

 

It wasn't a simple question. It was nonsense based on ignoring what autarky means.

No they aren't. None of them are closed economies.

No it isn't. The existence of economies of scale guarantees it

 

I could easily see a country pulling out of the EU. Doesn't mean they would use autarky. They would still trade just with the rest of the world USA China etc. They would still trade with the rest of Europe just with some custom duties which don't exist today.

The country which is closest to autarky is North Korea (it's even the official philosophy). The economy is very weak. They have a hard time feeding their people. They could no doubt do better if they traded more with other countrys.

They could produce something others want and sell it for grain to feed their people but this would go against the juiche (spelling?) philosophy.

If they tryed autarky they would probably be about as sucessful as North Korea.

 

I get the impression that you have reached that age where you only see what you want to see .
You have completely missed that I have been dragging you along like a fish on bait because there is no such thing as an autarky -- other than a very small and probably isolated society.
For you then to make dogmatic assertions of , what would , or wouldn't happen , in a closed economy of any size is absurd .

 

No, I'm just able to utilise economic concepts with validity

No, you gave nonsense and I've used it to hammer home the economics.

Again, its basic economics. Economies of scale ensures that, within a closed economy, oligopolistic inefficiencies will be the norm

 

You really do love your 25 pence words.

ol·i·gop·o·ly (l-gp-l, l-)
n. pl. ol·i·gop·o·lies
A market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors.

 

Basic economics! Trade analysis covers the impact of imperfect competition in some detail. Indeed, mere reference to comparative advantage isn't enough to understand the nature of trade patterns and the gains created through trade

 

I agree that the larger the market, the bigger pool of comparitive advantage.

I disagree that jargon is needed "explain" that.

 

You've only described the importance of using the correct vocab. This isn't about a 'bigger pool of comparative' advantage. Its about reducing the negative consequences of market failure. Accuracy dear chap!

 

See, you can answer without jargon.

 

I've just noted that you were wrong (and ironically misapplying the concept of comparative advantage). Accuracy dear chap!

 

Have come here after the , Austerity Stormtroopers , thread .
And here I find someone else making the same complaint , albeit in different words .Namely ,
Too much jargon and text book nonsense -speak , not enough common sense .
My experience is that the more the techno speak , the greater the chance of the author not seeing the wood for the trees .imo

 

Its called 'economics'. I won't apologise for knowing economics and how to apply it. As we've seen, if one doesn't, one is prone to very basic error. You go further of course, as shown by your deliberate misrepresentation of data in the other thread

 

You completely miss the triumph of getting you to write a sentence that didn't use a single obscure term.

 

No, you missed the irony involved in my response being a correction for you misapplying economic term

 

You may sincerely believe that , but it simply makes others laugh .
Your Posts are not impressing your betters here by repeatedly trying to write simple statements in long winded Gobbledygook .
Your efforts are not Economics centered . They simply show us that you have a pretentious style and do not listen and that you are not able to handle constructive criticism .