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: Second Proposal for Economic Flexibility
Details
Submitted by[?]: Front for State Prosperity
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: June 2126
Description[?]:
| To improve competition and ensure that businesses are run in the most efficient possible manner, while ensuring that workers are not held into industries doomed to a slow death and can seek more gainful employment in other fields, we should cease subsidizing failing businesses. These subsidies are an unnecessary distortion of the market and they have the unfortunate effect of failing to punish inefficient business mechanisms. They also cost significantly to pursue, necessitating more taxes - taxes which have a proven negative effect on the economy, might I add. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on industry and subsidies to industrial operations.
Old value:: The government subsidizes private enterprises that face bankruptcy.
Current: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Proposed: The government does not intervene in the market nor provide any form of subsidies/relief to industries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:39:41, October 12, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Second Proposal for Economic Flexibility |
| Message | This is a piece of legislation that the RLP will gladly support. We feel that the threat of failure is a valuable tool of the market to punish ineffective businesses. |
| Date | 23:52:31, October 12, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Second Proposal for Economic Flexibility |
| Message | The LPE has in vain struggled against the privatisation of our nations most important industries. This is, once again, a step away from what we aspire to. when you all get on the bus today, on your way to the senate, it will be your own fault that the fares are up again. Oh, wait, you probably all drive suvs to work. |
| Date | 00:24:08, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Second Proposal for Economic Flexibility |
| Message | SUV's are idiotic and wasteful machines that are expensive and inefficient. We're a green capitalist party. Ownership of an SUV is grounds for expulsion from the PCP and we do our best to encourage people to buy more sensible cars like hybrids. |
| Date | 00:27:32, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Second Proposal for Economic Flexibility |
| Message | Not grounds for expulsion from supporting us, granted. Just expulsion from party leadership and ineligibility for positions in the legislature. We're out to set a good example but don't want to alienate businessmen. |
| Date | 04:58:27, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Second Proposal for Economic Flexibility |
| Message | The AAP supports the LPE on this matter. While the AAP are keen libertarians, we ALSO believe that libertarianism must be tempered by rationality. We are happy to see market forces driving the economy (obviously)... but we feel that there needs to be a 'safety net' in the case of CORE industry, that is essential to the day-to-day running of the nation. The AAP suggests that the other parties go back and review the Bill that SET this policy, to review the fine-print... and see how this compromise was reached. http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=21812 |
| Date | 22:52:46, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Second Proposal for Economic Flexibility |
| Message | AAP - it sounds more like you're in favor of the government acting as a last resort investor. Personally, I think that such a system would be less damaging than the current one is. |
| Date | 03:52:14, October 14, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Second Proposal for Economic Flexibility |
| Message | Response to the PCP: Actually, the Last Resort was the original subject of the first Bill in the AAP's "Last Resort" legislation series. The CURRENT law is the 'compromise' from that platform. One fails to see, however, how the government acting as emergency funding of near-bankrupt industry can be considered 'damaging'? |
| Date | 05:50:49, October 14, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Second Proposal for Economic Flexibility |
| Message | I don't mind if the government stepped in with nationalization of vital industries. The very prevalence of libertarian and capitalist parties would ensure that they were returned to the private sector as soon as the private sector would function with them. However, subsidies of ANY failing business - as it is in the current law set - result in a market that fails to punish failure and bad business models. Under the current system, if a company dips into the red, they get their loss made up by the government. Thus they can do whatever they like, essentially. I oppose this blank check form of corporate welfare. It's too corrupt and open to abuse. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 166 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 334 |
| Random fact: The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to prevent confusion by ensuring unofficial or outdated bills labelled as "Cultural Protocols" are removed from their nation page. |
| Random quote: "All this concern with the effects of global warming is another manifestation of being politically correct." - David Young |