World Government #6: Looking Back, I Always Intended Isolationism
Thinking about it, I had initially aimed for isolationism. And about ninety percent of the reason was the Great Depression. Wouldn't it be great if the US crashed harder? Wouldn't that keep us safe from the American threat? Of course not. Sure, America tanked because of the Depression, but what tanked even harder was the Weimar Republic. When a great power falls, all the countries tied to it usually follow suit.
'Great powers have the weight class to rebuild, but the satellites don't.' They crash together, but recovery is slower than the great power's—sometimes by a lot. Money only flows back in once the big player has bounced back enough to think, "Hey, anywhere cheap to invest?"
'If I'd stuck to isolationism from the start, the economy might've been poorer than now, but we'd have worried less about the Depression.' There were good reasons I planned to go isolationist. For one, the Korean Empire is a one-party state, a cooperative state, and a laissez-faire corporate state. One-party politics, but economics run like a corporate fiefdom. That worked because I'd seized control of the Empire's logistics—from peddlers to railroads, trucks, ships, and even airships.
I dominated the military and bureaucracy's logistics networks, which let me hands-off the companies and co-ops without much interference. They could do whatever internally; I didn't care. But to make money anywhere, they had to pass through my hands. I'd become a sort of Lavoisier, taxing everyone from the sunny legitimate economy to the shadowy underground, funding the state that way.
For someone like me who believes in taxing money flows from the get-go, the administrative waste of micromanaging them was pure nonsense. The Empire—or at least Korea—had no room for that luxury. So I decentralized the old centralized Joseon into regional autonomies, reforming the Empire into full local self-governance. Controlling that massive North China Plain with a tiny Korean-speaking elite was a challenge in itself.
So far, so good. It had chugged along okay. The problem? Who was to blame for ditching isolationism. That made the Depression unavoidable.
'I've prepared to some extent, but with growth exceeding my expectations, the Empire's share of the world economy has ballooned. Of course we'll feel it—harder than I thought.' No matter how much I prepare, in a free-trade world, bigger economy means the Depression hits like a constant, crumbling from unexpected angles.
But telling everyone to stop growing? That's ridiculous. The Depression is harsher on small powers than great ones. We need development. So switching to isolationism now? Impossible. It's like making a soaring albatross adapt to swimming like a penguin.
That's why I leaned on Britain to soften the blow from America. But is that enough? Trusting Britain completely is clinical insanity. They're nice to have around, but total reliance? Mad. Who knows if they'll Brexit with their lackeys tomorrow. Bet on it: if the Empire looks shaky, they'll cut us loose. I'd stake my fortune on it. At minimum, the Empire can't be worse off than Britain in the Depression.
The real issue? Every fix feels like a band-aid. No matter how much I stimulate demand or boost global growth, the Depression comes. Dams might keep water and power flowing in the worst case, preventing starvation and enabling rough recovery—but it still comes.
Spreading the Empire's burden via global dams and their client states softens it some, but without trusting Britain, the Empire itself must change. 'And right now, as a corporate state, that's impossible.'
A corporate state isn't corporate because of companies—it's because the state barely interferes with them. That's the Empire: near-night watchman state. Without surgery on that, the Depression is fatal. Isolationism might've let it slide, or at least crash without total ruin. Without a self-defense plan, I see the Empire suffering as bad as America.
We've feasted so far; we lack immunity to crashes. Even this minor postwar slump—not even comparable to the big one—has the party scrambling. I just asked for estimates, and 'with our reserves, we won't collapse... but honestly, that's hopeful thinking.'
Time for surgery. Should I wield the knife? "Surgery on the economy. Arrogant thought, honestly."
Economics is unpredictability incarnate. I can operate on politicians, but the economy's uncertainty is huge. 'One slip and it's Xi Jinping... no, even without slips, it's Xi.' Remember how Xi tried fixing China's birth-rate collapse with common prosperity via fiscal policy? What a mess.
The economy never dances to a dictator's tune—it evolves on its own if you let it. Improving its constitution means pain. So yeah, it'll hurt me too. Love me or not, do the comrades love me more than their rice bowls? Probably they love me because I fill those bowls.
Luckily—or not—with phones and radios now, mobilizing administration means the party reining in companies and co-ops. Not impossible. Options are in my hands. Or just crash headfirst into the Depression. America recovered somehow. So could we—maybe with bigger reform momentum later, even if it's locking the barn after the horse is gone. Or skip reform altogether.
"But that's top-down reform at best." No different from the characters I'm about to hang on the flag myself.
"Your Excellency?"
What was I even agonizing over? Ditching isolationism led here: facing the Depression. For an isolationist wannabe like me, no clear answer now. More precisely, no good one from me.
'Forget the Depression—broaden your view, ditch the impatience, and above all, drop your ego and messiah complex.' The answer lies in the hearts of comrades and Empire citizens. It might not be perfect, but it's an answer.
"Real estate deregulation, ultimately?"
"Pardon?"
No matter how I turn it, that doesn't feel right. Really the answer to the coming Depression? For real?
I know the New Deal pumped construction, kickstarting America's heart. Can't deny that. As response? Fine. But preparation? I shake my head. 'Won't it deepen the Depression instead?'
Hell, maybe I should create the IMF via the League of Nations. Permanent seat denied per our demands, but we're members—paying dues yearly. Why chase seats when they poll us anyway? Would they reject our later application? With the Soviets real? As members, we have pull to form an IMF.
'Band-aid with IMF.' That's my thought—just backburnered since unsure how much it helps the Empire. Would they approve bailout funds for us? If desperate, they'd bully, but we'd slyly oppose. Compared to America's mess, we're mild—making us low-priority for bailouts. Can't argue that.
Real estate as the "solution"? 'Comrades are the problem.' Emperor-on-the-flag requests too—they're getting cocky, blocking my eyes and ears.
Co-ops selling real estate and apartments as assets? Not bad actually. Real estate has low production multipliers. Dump it to households; co-ops build another factory with the cash—win-win. House price spikes? Sell only in prime locations where values are already maxed. High-rises over 20 stories, fully infra'd—no redevelopment needed. Empire's "highly developed districts."
We divide into undeveloped, semi-developed, developing, highly developed. Developing gets my theme ideas; highly developed have co-ops' full blueprints. 'Nothing left to change—sell 'em off?' Fulfills comrades' homeownership dreams somewhat. I'm no communist hating houses as production means. Even commies would balk at seizing homes—better revolt against landlord rich. That's the communist vibe.
Selling real estate itself? Fine. The inflation it sparks? That's the killer. Our low prices come from abundant goods and co-ops hoarding property. I'm the one suppressing their real estate profits: "Don't easy-money it—build your stalls." Banned subletting. Price for cheap transfers to them.
They agreed: use for own revenue only. Rent to others? Okay, but primarily self-operate. Rents barely cover maintenance—sometimes free for members. Can't let it sit empty.
Market-selling managed properties now? Paper trails and phones make ownership tracking easy. But can't stop new owners re-renting. How? Co-ops I can throttle leaders; they hate it too. Individuals? 100% rent out—split rooms if needed. Chasing them kills people. Comrades short on cash always, but it fuels inflation. Rents conjured from thin air.
I dislike real estate not just for low multipliers (pump money in if so). Real problem: loosen my tight inflation grip or throttle other sectors' growth—hike rates, sell bonds. I sell Empire bonds abroad over domestic—avoids devaluing corporate debt. Bad for issuers.
Hand real estate to individuals as Depression fix? Might help response—mild inflation solved it before. But not preparation. Inflation causes Depressions. Construction spikes it temporary; post-build, low-productivity prop-up? Cut real estate, pivot to productive investment? Nice, but postwar slump. Boom hides it, but broken economy means recession. Post-COVID style: pump money, get punched.
'One-party limits showing.' If sincere, incompetence; if lying, disqualification. Corporate base problematic, one-party top too. They whine till I cave.
'Real estate sales possible. Need foreign capital anyway. Can't keep them in canned factories forever.' Sell them property? Must—reciprocity. If they buy ours, we buy theirs. Long-term imbalance? No trust. Foreign buying slots limited anyway. Restricted co-op sales to individuals? Fine.
'But need some injection.' Good pretext: emperor on flag.
"Loosen the press first?" Radios now—local stations easy. Wireless era's TV precursor. Their anti-me barbs? Protects my eyes/ears from blocking comrades. Fuck the hate.