We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Protecting National Industries Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: AM Feminazi Movement
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2358
Description[?]:
| In line with LFFR policy, we ask the Convocation to consider protecting our great country from a flood of cheap imported and sub-standard goods. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change International trade (this is a default in the absense of a specific free trade agreement or specific trade embargo)
Old value:: The nation does not impose any tariffs or quotas on imports.
Current: The nation allows for imports, but imposes "ethical" tariffs on nations with lower environmental and labour rights standards.
Proposed: The nation allows for imports, but imposes protectionist tariffs and quotas on all imports.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:50:22, February 09, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Protecting National Industries Bill |
| Message | Protectionism greatly raises prices to consumers and is a policy our party stands strongly against. An economist like myself, as attuned as I am to the plight of Likatonian workers, recognizes that maximizing competition is the true populist stand, one that brings prices down for everyone, not allowing for overpriced prices OR wages. Competition is maximized by free trade. The PLPL will always oppose protectionism, as long as I am a member. --Trade and Industry minister Paul Krugman |
| Date | 13:24:25, February 09, 2007 CET | From | AM Feminazi Movement | To | Debating the Protecting National Industries Bill |
| Message | The trouble with this view is that not everything can be reduced to a monetary value. There are times, where, for the greater good and a secure future for the voters we just have to suck it in. Companies that go out of business due to cheap imports don't have to pay the unemployment benefits. |
| Date | 17:13:40, February 09, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Protecting National Industries Bill |
| Message | We know of nothing in Likatonian law that would exempt such companies from paying unemployment benefits. If there is, then that is what needs to be repealed. Any company that went out of business due to cheap imports needed to lower their prices and, if necessary to lower their prices, become more efficient. We are far more interested in protecting the public from overpriced goods than protecting businesses from foreign competition. |
| Date | 19:14:34, February 09, 2007 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Protecting National Industries Bill |
| Message | The PLPL, whilst noble in their cause, neglect an elementary point. Would they have our workers work in conditions and for wages paid in third world countries to remain competitive? That may be the only way our companies can compete in some markets. Despite this, we cannot support protectionism, although we would support some sort of tied or reciprocal duties. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 67 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 132 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Never use the same password as a friend. If two or more active accounts use the same password, they will be inactivated. |
| Random quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair |