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: Economics Act 2149
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Democrat 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: March 2152
Description[?]:
| This provides provisions for the handling of money in Vanuku |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on advertising
Old value:: All advertising is permitted.
Current: Only advertising that meets certain set standards is permitted.
Proposed: Only advertising that meets certain set standards is permitted.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Energy regulation.
Old value:: Energy is provided by private, unregulated companies but subsidies are given to those on a low income.
Current: Energy provision is left to local governments.
Proposed: Energy is provided by private companies but the prices they can charge are regulated.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards fireworks.
Old value:: Fireworks of all sorts are illegal.
Current: Only adults are allowed to purchase fireworks
Proposed: Local governments determine fireworks laws.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change
The government's policy regarding foreign investments.
Old value:: Foreign investors may freely invest in national companies.
Current: Foreign investors may invest in national companies, but may not get a majority share.
Proposed: Foreign investors may invest in national companies, but may not get a majority share.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The right to gamble.
Old value:: The legality of gambling is a matter of local governments.
Current: Gambling is illegal unless taking place in a licensed casino.
Proposed: Gambling is illegal unless taking place in a licensed casino.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change Policy concerning industrial hemp.
Old value:: There are no regulations on industrial hemp.
Current: Only regulated agribusinesses may produce industrial hemp.
Proposed: Industrial hemp regulations are left up to local governments.
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on minimum wage regulation.
Old value:: There is no provision for a minimum wage.
Current: There shall be a minimum wage at a level considered a "living wage," well above the poverty line for a full time worker.
Proposed: There shall be a minimum wage at a level that a single full time worker on it can adequately subsist.
Article 8
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning phone services.
Old value:: There are no regulations on phone service.
Current: Telephone lines are provided free of charge to all citizens.
Proposed: The state regulates the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Article 9
Proposal[?] to change The distribution, purchasing and possession of material depicting pornographic acts.
Old value:: All forms of pornography are illegal.
Current: Pornography depicting consenting adults is legal for adults.
Proposed: Pornography depicting consenting adults is legal for adults.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:32:56, December 03, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | The DSP disagrees with article 4 and 5. Local governments should get to determine gambling laws, and who cares if foreign companies have a majority share? All you are doing is resticting international and economic growth. |
| Date | 09:08:09, December 03, 2005 CET | From | Pragmatic Symphony Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | We suggest splitting this bill into several smaller portions that can be individually debated. We oppose articles II, IV, V, and VI |
| Date | 11:00:40, December 04, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | Explain your objections to II, IV, V, VI Having a standard gambling law makes sense and it helps to prevent against problem gamblers, if only once place offers gambling then people with gambling problems can be banned from entering the premises. As for preventing international companies from owning majority shares, how the hell would someone from another country know whats best for our country. Majority share gives you all the power. For example I'm from Australia, and Telstra our national phone carrier was recently bought out by American's check the current share price for instances since they bought... down 17% check staff cutd, up 200% I could go on and on, my point is how the hell were the Americans going to know whats best for us, only Vanuku's know whats best for Vanuku. |
| Date | 16:12:14, December 04, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | By buying a company, foreign investors aren't deciding the country. They just decide the direction of that company. How would we know which people have gamblig problems? Besides, casinos want people like that to come. It means more profit. |
| Date | 20:18:51, December 04, 2005 CET | From | Pragmatic Symphony Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | Alright II: While regulation can work, it decreases the flexibility of the company. Corperations can maximise profit by changing the price and by changing the amount of capital they use and the amount they produce. By regulating the price, we force them to maximise profit only through their spending practices... if they start losing money, the only thing they can do is lay people off. Subsidies to the poor, however, allow the corperations to maintain their flexibility and maintain a stead labour force. IV: Yes, foreign corperations can do damage. Unfortunately, we are in no position to limit foreign investment. Our country is POOR. We need all the investment we can get. Also, relying on any corperation to 'know what's best' for vanuku is dangerous. Corperations are out only for themselves, even nationally run ones. Which is why we need to legislate limits on their actions, not on who commits the actions. I could list off a bunch of domestic corperations that are just as destructive as foreign owned ones. V: There is no way to restrict gambling in private dwellings or even the odd chess game for money in the park. It's a silly law, along the same lines as prohibition: unenforceable. By leaving it up to local governments, we give the provinces a source of income and let them react quickly to specific problems rather than letting the government lay blanket pronoucements on the entire country. Also, casino's don't kick out people who are addicted to gambling.... they like those people. They are in it for the cash too. VI: Industrial hemp is a useful material and it has meaningless amounts of THC. There's no reason to restrict it's use at all. |
| Date | 12:25:32, December 05, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | Our country is POOR cause this Parliament keeps voting out useful tax bills |
| Date | 20:39:53, December 05, 2005 CET | From | Pragmatic Symphony Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | The taxes suggested would have beggered the country further. And actually, we're poor because wouter hasn't enabled the economic model =) |
| Date | 11:14:02, December 06, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | Well I put this bill to the floor, and as with every piece of legislation there are elements that people dont like and there are elements that people do like, you need to decided which outways which and vote accordingly |
| Date | 11:16:57, December 06, 2005 CET | From | Pragmatic Symphony Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | Ah, a poison pill. Well, this makes my next bill easy. |
| Date | 11:20:08, December 06, 2005 CET | From | Pragmatic Symphony Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | This does beg the question though, is the liberal democratic party acting in the interests of the people, or in the interests of party politics. Many of these reforms are good, and yet we find it nessisary to oppose them because the Liberal Democrats were unwilling to compremise on issues, as we have done numerous times in the past. |
| Date | 11:38:32, December 06, 2005 CET | From | Pragmatic Symphony Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | OOC: A friend pointed out it should be raises the question, not begs the question. And liberal democrats, you know not what you have called down upon yourself. |
| Date | 15:02:10, December 06, 2005 CET | From | Ad hoc Vanuku Security Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | The Liberal Democrats are only interest in furthering their own ends, not the good of Vanuku |
| Date | 00:46:35, December 07, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Economics Act 2149 |
| Message | I still disagree with articles 4 and 5, but I will support the bill as a whole because it does more good than harm. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 213 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 222 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 125 |
| Random fact: Whilst the use of non-English languages can be appropriate for nation names, party names, constitutional titles and other variables, English is the official language of communication in the game. All descriptive texts and public communications should be in English or at least appear alongside a full English translation. |
| Random quote: "Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: the communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.'" - Phelps Adams |