Balanced budget with no taxes, just nationalized industries?

[Blue3]

Could the budget of a government with an advanced economy, like one of the G7, be balanced with no taxes, depending solely on the nationalization of certain key industries?

[Karpatsky]

Possibly, but it could really only work with highly profitable industries which don't lose much to the inefficiency of monopolistic control - extractive industries basically.

[Blue3]

Possibly, but it could really only work with highly profitable industries which don't lose much to the inefficiency of monopolistic control - extractive industries basically.

Which industries would those be?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Possibly, but it could really only work with highly profitable industries which don't lose much to the inefficiency of monopolistic control - extractive industries basically.

Which industries would those be?

Oil. And I think the high debt of the United Arab Emirates, etc.  proves this model won't succeed.

[tschandler]

There is no way you could centrally plan an economy like the US.

[RFayette]

There is no way you could centrally plan an economy like the US.

[DC Al Fine]

You could probably make it work in a tiny petrostate, otherwise no.

[Blue3]

There is no way you could centrally plan an economy like the US.

I'm not talking necessarily about the US, nor necessarily about centrally-planning the whole economy.

Just which industries would need to be nationalized.

I believe Russia nationalized oil/gas, has only a flat 10% income tax, and a very small deficit? Is that true?

Can it be done without oil/gas?

For example, could a country nationalize all household appliances and electronics, plus the materials needed to make them? Combined with a few other random industries, like fashion and retail, and that would generate enough revenue? Etc. Looking for creative solutions.

[Dr. MB]

Nationalization wouldn’t work here. “Statization” or whatever it would be called could. Alaska could “statize” its oil industry for example.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

There is no way you could centrally plan an economy like the US.

I'm not talking necessarily about the US, nor necessarily about centrally-planning the whole economy.

Just which industries would need to be nationalized.

I believe Russia nationalized oil/gas, has only a flat 10% income tax, and a very small deficit? Is that true?

Can it be done without oil/gas?

For example, could a country nationalize all household appliances and electronics, plus the materials needed to make them? Combined with a few other random industries, like fashion and retail, and that would generate enough revenue? Etc. Looking for creative solutions.

The Russia model involved organized hostile takeovers of petroleum companies; I don’t know if that came to include all of them. That said, a regime that hinges its economy and its legitimacy on oil is open to shocks—Russia saw this in the 2010’s. They just received a credit upgrade because subsequent reforms have involved state spending on the assumption that oil trade for $40 a barrel (right now it is above $60). The caveat to this (outside of the entire country being exemplary of “resource trap” theory) is the sacrifice of economic growth.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In theory, governments could do so with those industries that are generally thought of as utilities.

In reality, government run utilities have a strong tendency to fail to maintain capital infrastructure so that the government can either keep rates low and/or skim money that should be used for maintenance and reserve funds to fund other projects.

So while it could theoretically be done, politically it has always proven impossible.

[tschandler]

There is no way a government can manage a complex industrial economy from the top down.

[Blue3]

I'm not saying the entire economy, I'm asking which industries would be enough that it would balance the budget.

[2952-0-0]

Sounds a lot like China, where much of the government's revenue comes from state owned enterprises rather than taxes themselves. However, these SOEs use their influence to monopolize markets and shake down the state-owned banks for cheap credit, leading to a lack of credit for private businesses, low interest rates for savers, and a property bubble (as the only place savers could funnel their money).

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would require running these industries for a profit instead of for the sake of the common good, which would be antithetical to the spirit of nationalization and simply turn state bureaucrats into capitalist parasites. The comparison with """Communist""" China is certainly relevant, yeah

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It would require running these industries for a profit instead of for the sake of the common good, which would be antithetical to the spirit of nationalization and simply turn state bureaucrats into capitalist parasites. The comparison with """Communist""" China is certainly relevant, yeah

And if the “common good” is to sell for a profit to foreigners to fund infrastructure, schooling, and defense?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would require running these industries for a profit instead of for the sake of the common good, which would be antithetical to the spirit of nationalization and simply turn state bureaucrats into capitalist parasites. The comparison with """Communist""" China is certainly relevant, yeah

And if the “common good” is to sell for a profit to foreigners to fund infrastructure, schooling, and defense?

I guess it depends just how exploitative you have to get in order to turn up a profit. So it could work in some cases, but I'm still skeptical.

[BenBurch]

Possibly, but it could really only work with highly profitable industries which don't lose much to the inefficiency of monopolistic control - extractive industries basically.

Which industries would those be?

Oil. And I think the high debt of the United Arab Emirates, etc.  proves this model won't succeed.

It didn't work out for Venezuela.