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: State-owned Farms and Private Sector Farms
Details
Submitted by[?]: Socialist Party of Darnussia
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: September 2144
Description[?]:
| Currently, all farming is left to the private sector and there are no subsidies for any farmers. Having a few strategic crops produced on state farms would be more reliable and ensure that these important crops are produced. The private sector will still produce all other crops. I feel that, at this time, Darnussia needs a few state farms for strategic crops in addition to the numerous privately owned farms already in existence. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government denies subsidy assistance to farmers.
Current: The government denies subsidy assistance to farmers.
Proposed: Strategic crops are produced on State owned farms. All other produce is left to the Private sector.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:57:15, November 21, 2005 CET | From | Socialist Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the State-owned Farms and Private Sector Farms |
| Message | Social Democratic Party, why are you going against what appears to be a bill that suits your views. Currently, no farmers receive subsidies and no farming is managed by the government. Certain crops must be produced on state farms because they are important. As I said, this is more reliable. What if a wheat production company that controlled farming suddenly decided to raise its prices just to make a profit? The price of wheat would skyrocket and some people would probably be very hungry or even starve under the current system. If we had just a few important, strategic crops produced on state farms in such a situation, then the price of wheat would go up, but people would not starve to death or be hungry because they are unable to afford wheat. Why won't you support a bill that seems in line with your views in general? Legitimate Businessman's Social Club, you should vote "yes" because this bill will still allow businesses to run privately owned farms. Private businesses will still grow most crops and will still grow the strategic crops. It's just that the state will also grow the strategic crops. Do you not want to compete with the state? Businessmen won't have to compete with the state except for certain strategic crops. The rest are all still produced by privately owned farms. These privately owned farms will still rake in the profits, it's just that our strategic crops will be partially grown by the government. Come on, compromise a little! It's healthy! |
| Date | 19:38:57, November 21, 2005 CET | From | Chinkopodian Economic Democrats | To | Debating the State-owned Farms and Private Sector Farms |
| Message | "What if a wheat production company that controlled farming suddenly decided to raise its prices just to make a profit?" Another wheat company would offer cheaper wheat. "Do you not want to compete with the state?" Nope, I just don't want nationalised money-eating giants wasting government funds. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 46 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 155 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Character names must appear plausible and should consist of at least a first name and a surname. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented |
| Random quote: "Modern technology owes ecology an apology." - Alan M. Eddison |