Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 00:40:15
Server time: 15:19:44, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): HopesFor | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Re-Nationalisation of Energy Provisions

Details

Submitted by[?]: Democratic Workers' Party and CTUL List

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: December 2493

Description[?]:

Our local government have cut back on spending; the local grid is run by mice turning wheels. We can't even watch a whole episode of Dancing with Sorbanikans without the telebox cutting out. Es klingt nicht so gut.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date14:08:21, November 29, 2007 CET
FromKapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
ToDebating the Re-Nationalisation of Energy Provisions
MessageCan someone please explain what so-called "advantages" that will come from this bill???

On the contrary, it will HURT the people (POOR)!!!

Case in point: If the Government has a MONOPOLY over electrical energy production since it owns the ENTIRE grid!!!

According to "Economics 101" that is taught at Immerence University in St. Vodinsberg, this means that there is NO COMPETITION in the market (since Government owns everything). However, since the sources of electrical energy (oil, coal, water, hydrogen, potatoes, ethanol, biodiesel, etccc) are LIMITED in number by nature, this means that in order to efficiently allocate the energy resources, electricity has to be RATIONED or the PRICE has to SKYROCKET on poor and middle class consumers. In addition, the State will have to "cut" the energy---thus ***diminishing*** the QUALITY---in order to cut costs.

In a nutshell, anytime there is a MONOPOLY on a good or service, this means that there are only 3 possible results:

(1) The Price will SKYROCKET;

(2) There will be RATIONING of critical energy resources;

(3) The Quality will DIMINISH;

***********************************************************************************************************************
Therefore, the most EFFICIENT solution would be to allow MULTIPLE private companies to own a "piece" of the grid and electrical energy; This will lead to COMPETITION.

Case in Point:

(1) Company A produces the BEST quality of electricity and energy but their price is EXPENSIVE!!!

(2) Therefore, what do you think Company B who has a lower quality electricity going to do to COMPETE for these millions of Likath profits??? That's right: they will drastically CUT their price to make it cheaper than Company A in order to get a higher market share and profit (common sense);

(3) Then again, Company C comes along and creates a solution to offer an even BETTER quality of electricity than Company A, but again, CHEAPER than the electricity that is sold by Company B. In this case, the PEOPLE (represented as CONSUMERS) are KING b/c they are getting a better quality for a cheaper price;

(4) Now, again, will Company A and Company B just stand by and let Company C acquire a *de facto* EFFICIENCY monopoly??? OF COURST NOT!!! They are going to, in turn, drastically ***improve*** the QUALITY of their electricity while ***lowering*** the PRICE

.......and the cycle continues ON and ON AGAIN further enhancing the benefit to the PEOPLE!!!

Thank you for your full support.

Date16:44:04, November 29, 2007 CET
FromCommonwealth Workers Army
ToDebating the Re-Nationalisation of Energy Provisions
MessageWe never attended that course, for which we are glad, because it was apparently consumerist rubbish. The CWFP should have paid attention in school to the lessons that said "Everyone has a bias - everyone" and "analyse the data for yourselves". Apparently, however, CWFP representatives choose to believe whatever pro-mass-consumer claptrap their mentors dribble.

Monopolies may be 'unfair' to the competition, but they do not automatically equate to poor service or gouging, and neither is the 'competetive' market free of such things. Indeed, when a resource is very limited, competition can actually be harmful.

Also - the lecturers that the CWFP studied under seem to have failed to impart even the most basic principles of business. Every company has costs... some fixed, some variable. These costs mean that - no matter HOW competetive the market, every company has a price they can't undercut.

That's actually a point in favour of monopoly... you don't have to waste money competing for market share.

Date16:45:02, November 29, 2007 CET
FromCommonwealth Workers Army
ToDebating the Re-Nationalisation of Energy Provisions
MessageOn the other hand - the TDP like local better than national, and would see the whole mess removed if they could.

Date22:44:05, November 29, 2007 CET
FromAM Radical Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Re-Nationalisation of Energy Provisions
MessageTDP - I agree that no company can undercut theri base price, but without competitive pressures there is no reason to price the product below the maximum the consumer will pay. If there is an alternative source of the prodsuct, both will have to find reasond to attract consumer support. This may come in the form of lower price, better service, or a superior version of the product.

Without this pressure, why should they bother with any of the above. Surely you do not believe that the mogol of business will cut costs or improve service because they love us?

Date00:31:28, November 30, 2007 CET
FromKapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
ToDebating the Re-Nationalisation of Energy Provisions
Message"Monopolies may be 'unfair' to the competition, but they do not automatically equate to poor service or gouging, and neither is the 'competetive' market free of such things. Indeed, when a resource is very limited, competition can actually be harmful."--TDP

That is the most IRRATIONAL defense of monopolies that I have ever heard! On the contrary, if a company (whether owned by a Gov't bureaucrat or Wal-Market) has a MONOPOLY on a LIMITED resource, and the consumer demand for that resource is INELASTIC (i.e. not sensitive to the price level such as gasoline, energy, addictive substances like cocaine/heroin, etc.), that means that the company can afford to DE-base ("cut") the product thus lowering the quality while increasing the supply, but also TRIPLING the price for more profit.

Since product and resource is basically a NEED by the consumers, the people are "FORCED" to accept an inferior product for an expensive price. On the other hand, if a resource is limited (which applies to ALL products, in reality), competition is better b/c it will "FORCE" the seller to lower their price and/or raise the quality.

Date07:01:46, November 30, 2007 CET
FromCommonwealth Workers Army
ToDebating the Re-Nationalisation of Energy Provisions
MessageResponse to AM RLP: (OOC: I just want to insert here, the UK ran a number of monopolies for a number of years, none of which gouged - the secret is regulation and accountability) IC: The secret is regulation and accountability - it doesn't matter how many 'competitors' you have if you are all in collusion (like the TERR-OPEC organisation), and it doesn't matter how few competitors you have (even, none) if you are carefully observed and regulated.

No single company can beat the economies of scale the government has. No one can match that leverage. If the process is fully accountable, and the industry is not allowed to gouge for windfalls, there is no combination of competitors that can offer a lower price, or better service.

Date07:05:55, November 30, 2007 CET
FromCommonwealth Workers Army
ToDebating the Re-Nationalisation of Energy Provisions
MessageResponse to the CWFP: You could probably be more wrong if you tried, but you'd have to try pretty hard.

As we pointed out - companies cannot lower their prices indefinitely. Similarly, there is actually a maximum achievable quality level. If you are refining oil, and your oil is 100% refined, that's it - your quality isn't going any higher. Sure - you could say that the oil workers could wear nicer uniforms, or say 'hello' to the customer, but those are 'benefits' - not characteristics of the product or the industry... nor measures of quality.

The ONLY thing that can keep prices low in such a market, is regulation. Especially if the resource is limited, 'competitors' tend to find equilibrium and make accomodations - they form cartels that function exactly like a monopoly, but with the ILLUSION of competition.

Date08:30:31, November 30, 2007 CET
FromPermissive Social Union
ToDebating the Re-Nationalisation of Energy Provisions
MessageDamn straight !

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 313

no
    

Total Seats: 353

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Particracy does not allow official national flags of real-life nations or flags which are very prominent and recognisable (eg. the flags of the European Union, the United Nations, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or the Confederate States of America).

    Random quote: "To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making." - Otto von Bismarck

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 64