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: Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
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: July 2081
Description[?]:
| Parliament reaffirms the terms of the Foreign Investment Law passed unanimously in 2057: 1. Strategic industries must be owned within Lodamun. Foreign ownership of strategic industries is not permitted. Strategic industries are determined on a case-by-case basis by the cabinet. They include but are not necessarily limited to: defence industries, financial institutions, and national transportation systems. 2. Industries of major importance (as defined by the cabinet) must have majority ownership by Lodamunian citizens. These include but are not limited to food, water, steel and technology sectors. Lodamunian citizens shall be taken to include individuals, private corporations with majority-ownership by Lodamunians, and cooperatives recognized under national cooperatives law. 3. The state shall act as investor of last resort. That is, if a private corporation in a sector of strategic or major importance fails and no domestic investors can be found, the state will provide the necessary capital investment itself. Implementation of this clause is the responsibility of the Minister of Economic Affairs in consultation with the cabinet. 4. Natural resources and land belong to the people of Lodamun. Foreign investment in these sectors shall be on a production sharing basis. Ownership remains with Lodamun, while foreign companies are permitted to provide capital and plant when working in partnership with Lodamunians. Foreign investors will receive payment in the form of 40% of production. 5. Other industries, such as luxury production, remain open to unrestricted foreign investment. All foreign investment proposals will be subject to review by a Lodamun Investment Review Agency created for this purpose. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on industry and subsidies to industrial operations.
Old value:: The government does not intervene in the market nor provide any form of subsidies/relief to industries.
Current: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Proposed: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:58:59, July 02, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | Strongly oppose. |
| Date | 00:50:21, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | An industry fails when it does not supply a need of the people at a cost that the people are willing to pay. We are not willing to overrule the will of the people by forcibly taking their wealth and investing it in an industry that they have clearly chosen not to support. As such some powerful argument has to be presented to justify this proposal. We also do not see why foreign capital being invested in our industrial base is a problem. The attitude that only Lodamun citizens may own defence, finance or transport enterprises here is protectionist and opposed to the principles of international cooperation that Lodamun holds so dearly. The government does have the power to coopt industries in times of war, so our national security is not affected by this issue. Industries of major importance may be owned by whoever has the capital to set them up or buy them. We do not approve of the government interfering here. The natural resources and land of Lodamun belong to the people, true. The people then may dispose of them as they wish, as that is what ownership means. If the government prevents this, then the government is denying the ownership of the lands and resources by the people. We will not approve the funding of an investment review agency. This is unnecessary bureaucracy. Keep the government out of business, and keep the business out of government. We oppose this motion. |
| Date | 01:13:35, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | This merely affirms existing law. The investment review agency, for instance, has existed since 2057, so it is already funded. |
| Date | 01:50:33, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | Perhaps we need to eliminate that expenditure then? |
| Date | 02:34:56, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | If it were merely affirming the existing law, there would be no proposal to change an existing situation to a new situation. The existing situation is that the government does not offer any subsidies or relief. That is the position that we support. |
| Date | 03:43:29, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | ((It's a game mechanics problem. The fact is we did pass the law, even though the proposal was not yet in existence. Our foreign investment law and the debate on it actually helped shape this proposal, and proposals that have been in queue are only now being implemented by a new moderator. The trouble is that the default has been set on no law. I suppose one solution is to say that we passed the law in 2057 as a declaration of intent, established the institutions and barred foreign investment, but only now with the factory failing in Golavia has the actual issue of implementing the law arisen.)) |
| Date | 03:46:14, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | ((OK, you not we, passed the law in 2057. In game terms much water has passed beneath the bridge since then. Including the arrival of some new players. I believe that this needs to be debated)) |
| Date | 05:33:03, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | Noting the posts above, we still oppose for reasons often stated by us elsewhere. While we acknowledge the 2057 bill, we would have voted against then, as well as now. |
| Date | 06:05:30, July 03, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | I think "Strategic industries are owned by the state in order to ensure the public good; all other industries are under private ownership." is a far better option. The government needs to ensure the people are in control of industries like Water, Petroleum, Transit, Railr and Canals. |
| Date | 17:31:56, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | ((Yeah, debate is fine, and i agree the 3 new parties should get a chance to affect this, especially as one is now head of state. That's why i'm suggesting that continuity go like this: -- in 2057, parliament passed the bill in principle, and foreign investments have been reviewed continually ever since by a gov't agency -- the "investor of last resort" clause has never comed up before. Parliament is now debating whether it will in fact allow that clause to operate. -- At the same time, Parliament may if it wishes revoke the 2057 bill by voting against this. Our head of state takes the position that the bill should be revoked, while the CNT/AFL argues it should be strengthened. The whole issue is now re-opened.)) For our part, we believe state ownership of strategic industries should be a last resort only. We far prefer to see these industries controlled by cooperatives free of state control. |
| Date | 18:00:48, July 03, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | We would like to see stretegic industries owned by co-operatives as well, but there are two problems with this: One, co-operatives are struggling to get a hold on heavy industry, they are better suited to running small businesses. And two, the game mechanics don't allow for the running of industry by co-operatives, the game would interpret the state not being involved as private control of industry. |
| Date | 02:49:25, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | Co operatives are private control, has that not occurred to you CNT? ((The game mechanics side is not a problem)) On the issue of heavy industry, which strategic industries do you consider to be heavy? If you are concerned about transport industries, these have a good track history as co-operatives. The one that seems problematic is power generation. However we are sure that the CCF-Greens would agree that distributed solar power energy collection can easily be a co-operative system with each household contributing or drawing from the network as required. Heavy users of power should be made responsible for their own power generation anyway. |
| Date | 23:46:43, July 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | We would value the views of the Amystian Council as to whether they feel the same as they did in 2057. |
| Date | 07:03:23, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | Given the same condition as in the 2057 legislation, the Council would in all likelihood support. |
| Date | 16:40:45, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | We still do not see the justificatioin for the government to use public money to bail out a company that the public themselves chose not to support. Can the CCF-Greens please explain why we should do this. |
| Date | 18:13:44, July 07, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | The rationale is connected to national ownership of the economy. The law is clearly designed to prevent control of strategic economic sectors from falling into the hands of non-Lodamun interests. We are of course aware that the ASP will not feel this is a positive aim, but that is the aim. The government would act only in the event that a strategic business failed, to prevent it from falling into the hands of foreign owners. |
| Date | 18:20:05, July 07, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | If a business fails, then this is because it is not strategic. i.e. the country can survive without it. This may be due to there being effective competition, or due to it offering a product or service that simply is not required by the people. Either way, we should not 'bail out' an industry that the people have chosen not to use. |
| Date | 18:42:14, July 07, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | A strategic industry faces a take-over by foreign investors. Should the government allow a rogue state (our neighbour Kalistan has been governed on occasion by an international criminal, for instance) to take control? Or should it intervene to prevent this sort of foreign take-over? There was a national consensus in 2057 that foreign ownership of strategic industries should be prevented, and that this was a valid area for government involvement. Of course, there are new parties formed since then that do not share the consensus. Our question is whether the other parties in parliament still feel the same, so that we will know whether to move this to a vote. The Amystian Council appears to still feel the same way. Do the former PACF parties also agree? |
| Date | 19:04:30, July 07, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | While we could reluctantly agree with protecting certain industries from foreign control, this is not what the proposal you have added to this bill details. It is concerned with the rescuing of failing companies by the government. The two are completely different things. |
| Date | 16:58:23, July 08, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | The wording of the proposal is far from perfect, but it is the closest to the intent of clause 3 of the bill text. |
| Date | 17:11:25, July 08, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | However being the closest does not mean that it is correct to add it to the bill. What the proposition proposes may be the closest, but it is still very far from being what was agreed in 2057. We fail to see any need to reaffirm this act, given that there is no proposition that fits the intent of the act. |
| Date | 16:35:34, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | A sale requires the seller's consent. Foreign interests cannot buy Lodamun's industries without their voluntary cooperation. |
| Date | 17:29:06, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | We will simply have to agree to disagree. Will one of the former PACF parties give their comments? |
| Date | 20:00:24, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | Do you mean disagree on whether the proposal matches your intent, or on whether we would support theis act? If the latter then fine, if the former we would like some explanation as to how you interpret: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries ... as meaning A strategic industry faces a take-over by foreign investors. Should the government allow a rogue state (our neighbour Kalistan has been governed on occasion by an international criminal, for instance) to take control? Or should it intervene to prevent this sort of foreign take-over? The two are completely different. |
| Date | 04:42:33, July 13, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | We support the foreign investment law, but we aren't delighted with just nationalizing failing industries. # 'The state owns the commanding heights of the economy and all major industries, but private ownership is allowed in the minor industries' or # 'Strategic industries are owned by the state in order to ensure the public good; all other industries are under private ownership' would be far better, in our opinion. There is no point going halfway here, it's not like any of the right wing parties will vote for anyway. |
| Date | 06:24:06, July 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | Perhaps CCF is more moderate on this issue than you are? Some issues find a middle ground for reasons other than compromise... Or maybe Im wrong. However, the current option doesnt even make much sense to me. If an industry is "vital" there is significant demand for it. If there is significant demand for it, it will not fail. It makes no sense to take a failing industry and pass those losses onto taxpayers, losses and business failures are as important to an economy as profit, expansion, and entrepreneurship. If one of the socialist/communist parties could provide a rational argument to the contrary it would be appreciated, at least to become better informed on other opinions. |
| Date | 19:03:08, July 13, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | The intent is of course to go halfway there, as this proposal seems likely to gain Amystian Council support. We are not certain the more state-controlled options could. We do not feel the current situation is a good one. And of course, it's well known that this party prefers half-measures to no measures at all. Nationalizations as a last resort strikes us as the best policy, one that could gain widespread support, and one that will protect vital industries. We do not define "vital" in market terms. Even if all the farms in our country lose money, food security remains vital. ((To ASP: What can i say? The idea of nationalizing as a last resort comes closest to what we were talking about with the foreign ownership bill back in 2054. You disagree. Fine. All i can do is say that the current proposal value is entirely contradictory to that act, and this is the closest variation. I actually suggested the proposal wording over on the forums with our foreign investment law in mind.)) |
| Date | 15:53:36, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | Our problem is still with the discrepency between 'failing' and 'under threat of hostile foreign acquisition'. A company that is failing deserves to fail. It is not the role of the government to bail out incompetent businessmen. If a man in the street invests their money badly then the government does not come a long ands say "oh dear you are failing - here let me buy those investments from you at a price that saves your skin", no it does nothing. But you are proposing that if one of the rich of the nation sets up a business (an investment) and this fails then the government will help out the priveleged individual when it would not help the ordinary working man. This is a form of corporate welfare, and one of the worst forms at that. We will oppose and we hope that our colleagues from all political affiliations understand the point and oppose as well. |
| Date | 18:22:40, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | Additionally the current situation states only that subsidies/relief is not granted to companies. This does not mean that we can not protect our strategic industries fro hostile takeover. The two are completely different. The existing law most closely describes the situation you describe not the proposed law. |
| Date | 21:08:22, July 15, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Reaffirmation of Foreign Investment Law |
| Message | Since we are satisfied with the current foreign investment law, we will not support this proposal. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 61 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 198 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 189 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not implement nation renaming requests where the proposed name does not comply with the requirements set out in the Nation Renaming Guide: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6364 |
| Random quote: "Soldiers are not the enemies of the movement. They're potential allies. They're more than that. Soldiers are the only people in America who are paying a stiff price for this war. Everybody else profits. Soldiers are the ones losing their lives, losing friends, having their lives disrupted. The real victims of American imperialism are its soldiers." - Fred Gardner |