Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: January 5461
Next month in: 02:28:54
Server time: 17:31:05, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (3): hexaus18 | hexaus19 | starfruit | 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: New Energy Bill

Details

Submitted by[?]: Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy

Status[?]: passed

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: April 2123

Description[?]:

Stimulating research and development activities with regard to alternative energy sources will improve and diversify the economy. We have the opportunity to become a leading nation.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date19:00:27, October 07, 2005 CET
From Horticultural Entelechy
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
MessageThe HE favors the fostering of environments research in the pure sciences, as opposed to research for commercial interests, and supports this proposal.

Date19:40:54, October 07, 2005 CET
From Liberty Party
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
MessageThe Liberty Party opposes this government interference in the marketplace. Subsidies are bad. OOC: You will notice in real life that the market has mechanisms that encourage research & generation of renewable energy: consider oil (non-renewable) and wind (renewable).

Every day, the amount of oil in the world goes down, while the amount of wind stays broadly the same. The effect of this is to drive the price of oil up over time and therefore making it more expensive relative to wind. Once the price of wind is lower than the price of oil, as if by magic (which of course it is - the magical invisible hand), there will be substantial use of wind and less use of oil.

Even better, this is accomplished without the government screwing around the marketplace, making some products artificially expensive, others artificially cheap and taking money off ordinary people. Don't just take my word for it, go to your local petrol (or 'gas') station and compare the prices to a year ago. Talk to oil traders and ask what they think the market is going to do over the next year, 5 years, 10 years. Then go to Toyota and ask what is happening to public interest in their hybrid cars.

Of course, if the HE wants to spend their own money in pure science research, that is entirely their own business and no-one should interfere.

Date21:09:17, October 07, 2005 CET
From Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
MessageThe government may stimulate economical activity in the interest of our people. Privat companies invest in R&D in the interest of shareholders only. That's the difference and justifies the involvement of the government.

Date22:25:19, October 07, 2005 CET
From Liberty Party
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
MessageThe government claims to try to stimulate economic activity, allegedly in the interests of our people. However, the government is seldom successful and often spectacularly unsuccessful. The relentless ineptitude of the government does not stop the government from thinking it will be successful next time, so over and over again, the government takes money off people and then blows it on failure after failure, with no real remorse since it can just take more money to have another go.

Private companies invest in R&D to maximise earnings (strictly shareholder wealth, but the difference is of negligible importance to this discussion), and since they depend on *customers* for earnings they need to provide people with what they want (like the example of the Toyota hybrid).

Date03:09:35, October 08, 2005 CET
From Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
MessageWhy does the LP participate in this or any cabinet ? Frankly, your view to see a government as an enemy of society make us think that "the Anarchist Party" should be a more suitable name for your party.

The government is able to stimulate investments by subsidies in directions they find important and which won't be happening otherwise. It doens't imply that they are executing the activities themselves. Actually, the SLP favours that our private industry carries out the R&D.

Date03:57:33, October 08, 2005 CET
From Liberty Party
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
MessageThe LP participates in cabinet for two reasons, 1 - as long as there are parties like yours, there need to be parties like mine to provide a counterweight, 2 - while we believe that government is naturally incompetent and necessarily corruptive, we accept that there needs to be a (small) government to perform certain necessary tasks (like provide a mechanism to enforce contracts and to provide a police force and standing army) and we feel it is our duty to be involved in a) ensuring that the essential functions of government are performed in the least incompetent, least expensive and least corrupt fashion possible and b) ensuring that the actions of government do not exceed its limited jurisdiction. If you feel that this makes us an anarchist party, then perhaps you should do a bit of research into libertarianism and anarchism.

Your second paragraph justifies our stance. Your hopelessly optimistic belief that 'the government is able to stimulate investments' suggests a misplaced faith in the competence of government. Yet at the same time you recognise that governments will invest in directions 'they find important', which is rarely, if ever, the same as what is actually important. Moreover, subsidies are just plain stupid: they are a way of throwing good money after bad. If you want to waste your own money, be my guest - that's what liberty is all about. But don't *take* my money or anyone else's to waste on your frivolous pursuits.

Date09:30:37, October 08, 2005 CET
From Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
Message" The LP participates in cabinet for two reasons, 1 - as long as there are parties like yours, there need to be parties like mine to provide a counterweight"

The SLP favours a liberal based society with protection for the "have nots". Our goal is to obtain, in our view, a more civilized nation.

" 2 - while we believe that government is naturally incompetent and necessarily corruptive, we accept that there needs to be a (small) government to perform certain necessary tasks (like provide a mechanism to enforce contracts and to provide a police force and standing army) and we feel it is our duty to be involved in a) ensuring that the essential functions of government are performed in the least incompetent, least expensive and least corrupt fashion possible and b) ensuring that the actions of government do not exceed its limited jurisdiction. If you feel that this makes us an anarchist party, then perhaps you should do a bit of research into libertarianism and anarchism."

There we go again..... Obviously, we did not expect you to agree. The SLP knows it's theory but what also counts is how it is brought into practise. The LP's outbursts when any form of involvement of authorities is discussed appears to us as very dogmatic and without the necessary differentiations. It looks like the LP follows certain idea's and regardless of the circumstances they follow their convictions. Sometimes we feel this behavior can be compared with the believes of fundemantalist 's: just do as your bible tells you to do. It has the advantage of being very predictable of course but also reduces the ability to adapt to problems or chances in society.


"Your second paragraph justifies our stance. Your hopelessly optimistic belief that 'the government is able to stimulate investments' suggests a misplaced faith in the competence of government. Yet at the same time you recognise that governments will invest in directions 'they find important', which is rarely, if ever, the same as what is actually important. Moreover, subsidies are just plain stupid: they are a way of throwing good money after bad. If you want to waste your own money, be my guest - that's what liberty is all about. But don't *take* my money or anyone else's to waste on your frivolous pursuits. "

Yes, if you want to progress society governement has a role to play. As just in real life sometimes it's not working but that's no reason to abandon the government from any involvement.

Date14:12:51, October 08, 2005 CET
From Herut Orthodoxy
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
MessageI may be in favor of subsidies for research, but that would be it. The reason is when an industry gets a foothold, i.e oil, it does not want competition to deain its economic hold. Take for example the real life idea that, for some reasons, non-rechargable batteries in the market place haven't changed much in a long time.

Why? The people seem content to buy batteries at around the same level as they always have, and if corporations made batteries last longer, they'd lose profit since they could not constant sell new batteries.

Also, would it be in the interest of oil companies to have batteries that were small, and held a long charge?
No. Then hybrid cars (and completely electric) could hit the marketplace in greater numbers and greater quality.

Thus, if the subsidized R&D lead to non-patented technology available for public consumption, then I'd be for it. I'd not be for subsidizing the generation fo the energy though, let the market handle that.


OOC: Having real life experience with patent law, you'd be surprised who buys patents from small inventors and then does nothing but 'hides' them from market view in order to NOT have certain technologies developed. Or, maybe you wouldn't. Though the LP and I disagree on the effects of an ID card, the LP does understand the shadow movements of big industry, and big government.

Date15:29:48, October 08, 2005 CET
From Capitalist Party
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
MessageWe agree with our allies, the Liberty Party

Date17:15:07, October 08, 2005 CET
From Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
MessageDue to your remarks we reconsidered our position. To the SLP this is an important bill. We agree that the developed technology should be available for public consumption. Therefore we moved another proposal to Parliament : The Copyright Reform Bill ( http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=23273 ).

Hopefully this bill has become more acceptable to you.

Date20:23:56, October 08, 2005 CET
From Liberty Party
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
Message"I may be in favor of subsidies for research, but that would be it. The reason is when an industry gets a foothold, i.e oil, it does not want competition to deain its economic hold. Take for example the real life idea that, for some reasons, non-rechargable batteries in the market place haven't changed much in a long time.

Why? The people seem content to buy batteries at around the same level as they always have, and if corporations made batteries last longer, they'd lose profit since they could not constant sell new batteries."

Do you have an idea for a significantly better form of rechargeable battery? You seem perfectly convinced that the reason we don't have super rechargeable batteries is because the evil battery industry is choosing not to research this idea. Perhaps it just isn't quite that easy to make a rechargeable battery that is much better than we have at the moment. Don't forget that the shadowy battery industry is not the only industry in the world. Even though it may not be in Duracell's interests to invent a much better battery, it very much is in every other company's interest to do so, because any other company than the battery market-leader would make money from such a battery.

"Also, would it be in the interest of oil companies to have batteries that were small, and held a long charge?
No. Then hybrid cars (and completely electric) could hit the marketplace in greater numbers and greater quality."

Now you're saying that the reason hybrid cars have taken a long time to develop is because the oil companies are somehow intervening? How? What exactly are the oil companies doing to stop Toyota from designing a hybrid car? What exactly are they doing to stop consumers from wanting a hybrid car?

"OOC: Having real life experience with patent law, you'd be surprised who buys patents from small inventors and then does nothing but 'hides' them from market view in order to NOT have certain technologies developed."

Maybe that is an argument against patents rather than for subsidies.

Date23:53:58, October 08, 2005 CET
From Herut Orthodoxy
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
MessageIt seems the Liberty Party doesn't want to read what is written, it seems they like to read in a way to cause confrontation.

Do I have an idea? That question has no bearing on anything, except to show you have no argument.

Hybrids: What might they do? Maybe they already own loads of stock in the auto industry . No, that can't be true. OPEC nations, investors, and all related industries would never do that, would they?
When you're on the top, would you ever willingly give that up? Only a fool would. And they are not fools.

If the energy resourse is so great, as you claim, then subsidizing production will not be needed - the industry will come in and do it under market constraints. As I've stated, a bit of funding for public research seems worth while, but replacing the market with the government in production does not.

Date01:22:01, October 09, 2005 CET
From Liberty Party
ToDebating the New Energy Bill
Message"It seems the Liberty Party doesn't want to read what is written"

OK, so are you suggesting that I imagined the following: "Take for example the real life idea that, for some reasons, non-rechargable batteries in the market place haven't changed much in a long time.

Why? The people seem content to buy batteries at around the same level as they always have, and if corporations made batteries last longer, they'd lose profit since they could not constant sell new batteries." Did I also imagine this, "Also, would it be in the interest of oil companies to have batteries that were small, and held a long charge?
No. Then hybrid cars (and completely electric) could hit the marketplace in greater numbers and greater quality." Maybe I should have "read what was written" instead of, I don't know, imagining this "the shadow movements of big industry" and this "Maybe they already own loads of stock in the auto industry . No, that can't be true. OPEC nations, investors, and all related industries would never do that, would they?
When you're on the top, would you ever willingly give that up? Only a fool would. And they are not fools."

"Do I have an idea? That question has no bearing on anything,"

Well, yes actually it does have a bearing on something. It has a bearing on the fact that you seem to think that all technologies are really simple to invent. If it weren't for the shadowy world of big business we'd all by driving around in electric cars and using rechargeable batteries that never run out, we'd probably have colonies on Mars and robots would do all our cleaning. Just because you can imagine some magical technology to make your life easier, doesn't mean that it is simple to invent, or cheap to build.

"except to show you have no argument. "

Ooh, steady there sunshine, I really do have an argument. My argument is this: the market is doing the best that can be done. Government subsidies will not help, they will make things worse. Government subsidies means that someone has to have their money taken off of them so that they can be given to whoever the government likes this week. It doesn't matter that some companies have a vested interest in seeing that a technology fails. Maybe the oil companies really do not want hybrid cars to succeed (probably true). But guess what, the oil companies do not own every single business in the world.

Also, I'll let you into a little secret. I was being a bit naughty when I suggested that the oil companies are stopping Toyota from designing a hybrid car because I happen to know that Toyota really have designed a hybrid car. But not just Toyota but also Honda and Ford and etc etc. If you don't believe me, do a google search or something, go to your local car dealer. Maybe you can even take a test drive. I don't know why these shadowy oil companies that apparently own loads of stock in the auto industry would permit such developments in these car companies. After all, they are on top and would never willingly give that up. It's almost as if there was this thing called 'competition' in some other thing called a 'market'.

"If the energy resourse is so great, as you claim, then subsidizing production will not be needed - the industry will come in and do it under market constraints."

Exactly.

"As I've stated, a bit of funding for public research seems worth while"

I have no problem with you funding public research. Honestly, you can fund public research to your heart's content. As long as the government stays out of it, we're all happy.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 368

no
   

Total Seats: 187

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Party candidates for head of state elections are not visible to the public. This means that you cannot see who will run and who will not, which adds another strategic element to the elections.

    Random quote: "I don’t have facts to back this up." - Herman Cain

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 74