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: A Bill Introducing Economic Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Aldurian Conservative 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: October 2134
Description[?]:
| This Bill will: 1) Reform economic regulations, reducing government involvement in the economy. 2) Denationalize many industries. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: The state owns all defence industries.
Current: The state owns all defence industries.
Proposed: Defence industries are privately owned but subsidised by the state.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on energy generation.
Old value:: All power stations are publicly owned.
Current: All power stations are publicly owned.
Proposed: Private and public power stations exist side-by-side.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on the nation's power grid.
Old value:: The national grid is fully owned by the state.
Current: The national grid is fully owned by the state.
Proposed: Multiple private companies each own and maintain sections of the national power grid.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Energy regulation.
Old value:: Energy is provided by nationalised companies.
Current: Energy is provided by nationalised companies.
Proposed: Energy is provided by private companies but the prices they can charge are regulated.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: There is a free public health care system and a small number of private clinics, which are heavily regulated to ensure they treat their patients well and provide good care.
Current: Health care is entirely public and free; private clinics are banned.
Proposed: Health care is private, but is paid for by the state for people with low incomes.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on Democratic Workers' Councils.
Old value:: The government encourages the formation of Democratic Workers' Councils through subsidies and tax exemptions.
Current: The government requires all businesses to be run by Democratic Workers' Councils.
Proposed: The government does not intervene in the marketplace with regards to Democratic Workers' Councils.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:13:33, October 21, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Front | To | Debating the A Bill Introducing Economic Reform |
| Message | We would like to see Social Justice and Equality preserved, not destroyed. This bill is wrong and slightly disgusting in our party's eyes, excuse the harsh words, but these proposed actions do more than merit them. Every Article does more to weaken the nation and her people especially. True, a handful of greedy men may profit from these, but this is a Democratic Republic, and it shall remain so. This is a step towards Oligarchy and Theocracy. We shall not, and can not follow such directives. We mean no offense, but we must vote NO on this bill, and under no circumstances could we see otherwise. |
| Date | 05:30:33, October 21, 2005 CET | From | New Aldurian Conservative Party | To | Debating the A Bill Introducing Economic Reform |
| Message | As it is, we believe that the system as it stands is undemocratic. The ACP has expanded government steadily, whereas less government involvement, both in peoples' lives and in the economy, tends to be overwhelmingly better for all concerned. |
| Date | 15:43:45, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the A Bill Introducing Economic Reform |
| Message | This bill will hamper our proven economic model by allowing private interests to interfere in the management of critical ressources, at the expense of the less fortunates. Finally, nothing in the proposal will extend civil rights or improve our democratic institution: we are left with the impression that the NACP consider things that are non-capitalist as non-democratic. |
| Date | 19:30:16, October 21, 2005 CET | From | New Aldurian Conservative Party | To | Debating the A Bill Introducing Economic Reform |
| Message | We do not hold to such a belief; however, we do believe that things which engage the government significantly where involvement is not strongly necessary are non-democratic by virtue of the fact that they tend to, directly or indirectly, give more authority to bureaucracies at the expense of the people voicing their opinions, either through the market or through the legislature. |
| Date | 19:43:56, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the A Bill Introducing Economic Reform |
| Message | We understand your point of view, but disagree. |
| Date | 22:11:37, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Communist Party | To | Debating the A Bill Introducing Economic Reform |
| Message | As Communists, we will not support this bill. We would like to see evidence that less government interference is better for the economy. Remember, Alduria is not a Communist state, nor do we have a truly socialist economy. |
| Date | 02:48:00, October 22, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Front | To | Debating the A Bill Introducing Economic Reform |
| Message | Regarding what the ACP has said: Agreed in both parts. Though we'd really love to see the latter come true in the near future... |
| Date | 04:56:56, October 22, 2005 CET | From | New Aldurian Conservative Party | To | Debating the A Bill Introducing Economic Reform |
| Message | I will gladly grant that you do not have a truly Socialist economy, but at the same time, I must point out that you have, in fact, nationalized a great number of industries. While we are willing to yield that the government intervening to help out the poor is good, at the very least from a moral standpoint, we would like to give the following examples as far as history is concerned as to why less interference is good: 1) The Byzantine Empire versus the Italian city-states, notably Venice and Genoa. The latter prospered throughout the Middle Ages, while the former suffered significantly as far as their economy goes. This fact, by the way, does even consider the fact that Byzantium was under considerable stress from all sides militarily...the feudal system killed the economy, and this weakness can be traced in large part back to Diocletian's reforms. 2) For a more modern example, let's consider Poland and Germany during the 1990s and early 2000s. Poland reduced its government's involvement dramatically, and their economy grew accordingly. Germany, in the meantime, kept up a very strong set of social programs. Their economic situation sagged accordingly. 3) Japan and the United States. Japan kept the government out of the economy as much as possible through most of the post-WW2 20th Century. Their economy soared for approximately 40 years, and only fell down after non-associated banking practices caused the banking environment to become and remain hostile to new business startups. The United States had a similar post-war boom (albeit for slightly different reasons...the US population, after World War 2, had large financial reserves due to wartime rationing. As a result, they were able to spend money, jump-starting the economy as the government backed out. Japan, on the other hand, was in many places and many ways starting from scratch as a result of damage during the war), but this boom ran out of gas in the early 1970s, approximately 6-8 years after the Great Society programs were introduced. The US went through a rocky era from 1972/73-1983, but it recovered. Oil prices being manipulated by OPEC at times didn't help this, but it was an aggravating factor, not the cause of the trouble. And then there's the early-2000s malaise in the European economies, which the need to raise taxes to cover social programs didn't help. With few exceptions, all involving deficit spending, the economy eventually suffers as a result of increased government involvement. And lets not even talk about outright command economies...the bottom line, though, is that government involvement hurts the economy. |
| Date | 02:57:08, October 24, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the A Bill Introducing Economic Reform |
| Message | Nationalisation of vital industries is a good thing. In Québec, the electricity was very costly before the nationalisation and now we have the cheaper in north america and Hydro Québec gives a billion dollar to the governement in proffit. |
| Date | 04:19:28, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Moderates | To | Debating the A Bill Introducing Economic Reform |
| Message | We're more concerned with the scope of this bill than nationalization. We understand that the New Aldurian Conservative Party wishes to make changes under the broad category of "economic." However, this blends defense, energy, health care and labor unions. We agree with some changes and think others need revision. We agree with Article One. It promotes compitiion, which cause better products at lower rates. But it still allows the government some say in it's own defense. Articles Two - Four work together. Our only worry is what happens if only one power company exists in a grid? I understand the government may regulate prices. But lack of compitition means that the company may never have to promote advancements in services and technology. Article Five - Define low income. And which services would be funded by the state? Ultimately, we would probably vote for this bill. However a little clearification might be nice. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 123 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 278 |
| Random fact: Before choosing a nation, you may wish to research it first. For more information on the cultural backgrounds of the nations, please see the Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365 |
| Random quote: "Popular suffrage is in itself no guarantee of freedom. People can vote themselves into slavery." - Frank Chodorov |