Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: December 5460
Next month in: 02:04:25
Server time: 13:55:34, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Brazil25 | 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 Economy Policy

Details

Submitted by[?]: Anarchosyndicalist Libertarian Front

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: April 2212

Description[?]:

Some great changes in our state-policy!

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date21:15:20, April 06, 2006 CET
From Liberty Party
ToDebating the New Economy Policy
MessageOh, so by 'New Economy' Policy you mean 'Bad Economy' Policy.

These proposals are terrible.

Let's deal with them in order:
1. Raising corporate income tax means you are stealing more money from businesses which are successful and giving it to the State which is notorious for messing everything up. Raising income tax reduces investment and therefore damages the future economic growth of the nation. Lower growth means lower production means less employment and less wealth.
2. Price fixing breaks the market. There's no escaping the fact that you can't have a functioning market where the pricing signals are broken. In a free market, if it were realistically possible to produce energy much more cheaply than the existing rate, competitors would spring up to offer these reduced prices. Once the government takes over the price-setting, the available profits for new entrants are reduced and therefore the desirability of the sector is reduced and competition is reduced and innovation is reduced and prices are higher in the long run.
3. Sales taxes are much less bad than income tax, but that doesn't mean we should just mindlessly keep increasing tax, since every additional tax reduces economic activity (and therefore total wealth). Since you are not compensating for this proposed tax increase with a drop in income tax, this is also a bad policy. Oh, and this is also regressive, which might be a problem for all you socialists out there.
4. This is probably the dumbest idea of them all. Other than control-freak nationalism, there is absolutely no sane reason to kill FDI by controlling who can invest in our companies. The more money that other countries invest in our country, the greater our capital base, the greater our production, the greater our possible employment and the greater our wealth. Why would we want to be poor just so that we can say, 'hey foreigners, you're money's not welcome here!'
5. This is also a spectacularly bad idea. Forget the fact that this is robbery, plain and simple and just look at the economic consequences of the policy. By punishing successful businesses (by robbing them) you blunt our nation's effectiveness at our best talents. Then rewarding failing businesses (by bribing them to continue failing) you direct resources at the things we suck at. Since we expend our energies at what we do badly instead of what we do well, our total national wealth will fall (or at best, increase more slowly than without handouts). It's not even like these are really critical industries - if they were so critical, they would not be failing (they would be able to sell at enough to cover their costs). Either there is no demand for their product - in which case let the industry die and the capital/labour be redeployed at something for which there is a demand, or another country can make the product much more effectively - in which case buy from them and employ the net savings at producing something we are good at.
6. More tax increases. Great. Just what the economy needs.
7. Ah the minimum wage. Minimum wages are just another form of government price fixing, and as with all price fixing they do more harm than good. In this case, let us imagine that the proposed minimum wage is TRA7/hour. You've just made anyone who is worth less than TRA7/hour unemployed. There's an old saying, "Which should you have, ten people earning $9/hour or nine people earning $10/hour and one person unemployed?" The answer is, "You shouldn't get to choose whether that tenth person gets to work or not".
8. More price fixing. More bad economics.

We will be voting no and recommend that anyone who supports prosperity also votes no.

Date22:00:55, April 06, 2006 CET
From Anarchosyndicalist Libertarian Front
ToDebating the New Economy Policy
Message1. 15% is very low tax - we also don't want raise it too much and thats why we proposed only +2%

2. Energy is essential for producers and people - we believe that state should have minimal control over its prices

3. You are kidding only 2% (now it's 0!)

4. In my opinion it's very important. Think about situations when there is very fast cash flow out of our country. Our economy coudn't stand it. Any reasonable state must have little control over it.

5. Robbery? We talking about falling industries with people who are working in it!

6. Luxury - in our opinion that's right

7. Minimum wage is great social mechanism.

8. Well, taht's you're opinion!

Date12:37:15, April 07, 2006 CET
From Tirgith Populus Party
ToDebating the New Economy Policy
MessageTHe government makes a very large surplus every year. We spend less than we can. And every budget proposal lowers the amount spent. We don't need to raise taxes.

Date17:07:08, April 07, 2006 CET
From Liberty Party
ToDebating the New Economy Policy
Message1. 'low' is a relative term. It may be low compared to high tax social democracies like Sweden and France, but it's still higher than we need given that much of our budget is wasted.
2. Wow, energy is essential, what a profound observation. If energy is so essential, why do you want the government to mess it up. Would you argue that electricity is more important than, say, food? And yet the countries which have pursued the most free market approach to food are the countries that have never suffered famine since trade was discovered. We have the lowest priced food in the history of humanity, we have a situation where food production and distribution has become so sophisticated that where throughout most of human history it was necessary to have upwards of 80% of the population working in agriculture, it is now less than 10% in developed nations. That means that upwards of 70% of the population are able to direct their labour towards other improvements. Contrast that with the centrally planned approach of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea where millions starved to death through low yields and poor distribution. The argument that 'X is important therefore we need government to control X' is patently false. The more important X is, the more damage government does. Energy deregulation in the West, especially when done sensibly (like in Britain) greatly reduces energy prices through the free market, while the true energy cost in socialist countries is much higher.
3. It is a tax increase of 2%. An increase. Of 2%. When the government cannot spend properly the money it already expropriates, you are suggesting taking more. If you had suggested raising sales tax by 2% *and* REDUCING income tax by the same amount, I would have supported you, but I'm not agreeing to a net tax increase. And it's still regressive.
4. 'Very fast cash flow out of country'. What the hell are you talking about? If a company buys equity in Trigunian industry, unless the industry is immediately more than 100% profitable, there is not enough cash for the company to 'very fast' withdraw any more cash from the country than it just put in. In any event, this cash that you are worried about flowing out of the country is, at most, the marginal profit earned on the ADDITIONAL production (and therefore employment) generated by the presence of the investment. That is to say, that any money the company could withdraw from the country is not more than the money the company has introduced into the country AFTER paying our workers and creating our goods.
5. Robbery is when you use force (i.e., all the power of the state) to take something belonging to another (the product of a person's labour - i.e., their earnings which you are taxing). I am perfectly aware that we are talking about FAILING industries with people working in it. When you let that FAILING industry fail it releases capital (land, buildings, machinery, etc) and labour (workers) to actually work at something we are good at (i.e., SUCCESSFUL industries) rather than continue wasting their time (and my money) at something we are bad at (hence FAILING industries).
6. We don't doubt that you are in favour of high taxes. We are also becoming increasingly clear about your grasp of basic economics.
7. 'Social mechanism' is a euphemism for power. Specifically, in this case, the power for you to put people out of work. If increasing unemployment, reducing efficiency, reducing growth, reducing prosperity are 'great' things, then yes, the minimum wage is great. Otherwise, no, it is not great.
8. Yes that is my opinion. It is also the opinion of any sane economist. It's also contrary to the opinion of you and your 'very fast cash flows' theory of economics.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 113

no
     

Total Seats: 364

abstain
  

Total Seats: 78


Random fact: When forming a cabinet, try to include as few parties as possible, while still obtaining a majority of the seats.

Random quote: "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." - Ayn Rand

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 81