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: Free market
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Capitalist Party
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: July 2512
Description[?]:
| Free market is most efficient. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Energy regulation.
Old value:: Energy is provided by private companies but the prices they can charge are regulated.
Current: Energy is provided by private companies but the prices they can charge are regulated.
Proposed: Energy is provided by private, unregulated companies but subsidies are given to those on a low income.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change
The government's policy regarding foreign investments.
Old value:: Foreign investors need to obtain government approval for all investments in national companies.
Current: Foreign investors need to obtain government approval for all investments in national companies.
Proposed: Foreign investors may freely invest in national companies.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:27:08, January 05, 2008 CET | From | Hobrazian Peoples Party | To | Debating the Free market |
| Message | ...for the rich. |
| Date | 17:00:07, January 05, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Free market |
| Message | We would recommend you look up efficiency and then what the free market does, you might find that real events disagree with you. |
| Date | 23:23:04, January 05, 2008 CET | From | Social Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Free market |
| Message | We say so Party - I have a PHD in economics and politics. I am fully aware of the effects of a free market and the efficiency it brings. Answer me this, in which case are these two circumstances likely to be met. A competitive market or state provided which you seem to be so in favour of? - The most output is obtained from a given amount of inputs. - Production proceeds at the lowest possible per unit cost For once it would be interesting to hear something positive or constructive from the appropriately named "We say so party". Have you have ever voted in favour of a bill? It would be interesting to actually hear some policy ideas from you and not just this constant negativity. |
| Date | 23:24:22, January 05, 2008 CET | From | Social Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Free market |
| Message | I am not entirely sure how subsidies being given to people on low incomes is beneficial to only the rich? Please explain. |
| Date | 00:17:06, January 06, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Free market |
| Message | OOC - I congratulate you on your qualifications and would be happy to discuss real world effects of free market ideals however I feel that it would be inappropriate to do so within the confines of a game. IC - The We Say So! Party introduced many of the laws which this Country holds dear and is more deeply rooted in the history of this nation than any other. In regards the economic position of this nation, the We Say So! Party support a competitive market economy with safeguards in place to guarantee adequate safety and service provision, something which history tells us is required to guarantee such things as the market drives down prices but does little to maintain provision, safety or quality so long as profit margins are maintained/increased. In regards the statement provided by our colleagues, we maintain that best provision would be maintained by a regulated market economy, not by either a free market or state controlled economy. In regards subsidies, why should high market prices be supported by the government subsidising lower income earners. If the market is so good at driving down prices and providing services there should be no need for the government to subsidise the costs. What this bill effectively says is that you accept that prices will rise and the only way for the poor of our nation to be able to afford the services provided in an unregulated economy is to subsidise the those low earners as there would be no protection. So effectively the government subsidises private business, which negates the whole point of a free market, does it not? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 148 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 166 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 86 |
| Random fact: "Jezvraljogadsrlji" means "Social" in the Jelbic languages. |
| Random quote: "The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant." - Maximilien Robespierre |