Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: January 5461
Next month in: 02:31:42
Server time: 17:28:17, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (3): hexaus18 | hexaus19 | starfruit | 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: Reform Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: TSDRP

Status[?]: passed

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: May 2312

Description[?]:

Reforming several important aspects which we feel our party has missed out on in the past

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date10:50:31, November 10, 2006 CET
From Moderate Democratic Party
ToDebating the Reform Act
MessageI'll vote yes on this. But I was thinking about the second article.. The state shouldn't have to deal with such things..

Date18:13:10, November 10, 2006 CET
From TSDRP
ToDebating the Reform Act
MessageIt is an almost essential service so thats why i thought it was neccessary

Date03:03:22, November 11, 2006 CET
From Moderate Democratic Party
ToDebating the Reform Act
MessageI think it's more like a 'competition' between different companies, not something that the state should control. It'll be done of course because of the 'competitions'..

Date22:26:04, November 12, 2006 CET
From Liberty Party
ToDebating the Reform Act
MessageArticle 1 is both intellectually unsound and morally bankrupt. A minimum wage set at a level that will affect real wages will necessary cause institutional unemployment. The TUP may regard itself as both competent and entitled to decide arbitrarily who gets to work at what rate, but we regard this as an offensive act of authoritarianism.

Article 2 is similarly counter-productive. Presumably the reason why the TUP desires rate control is because it believes that too few people have access to telephone service (rather than this being a random power trip for the TUP). If this is the case then the results will be equivalent to any attempt by a ruler to impose price controls. Let us assume that the market price for 1 'unit' of telephone access is TRA x. Let us assume that the rate imposed by the government is TRA (x - y). In the market there will currently be a range of providers making a range of profits. Some will be making very high profits, some will be making low or no profits, and some may currently even be loss-making. If the maximum price that these providers can charge goes down, the marginal suppliers (those currently making low or no profits) will be driven out of the market and will turn their capital towards more profitable enterprises. Accordingly the aggregate supply of telephone service will decline. The restrictions on profit making will dissuade other entrepreneurs from entering the market and hence supply will not be able to recover. At the same time, the artificially low price of telephone service will increase demand (people who may have felt that a particular call was not important enough to spend TRA x on may change their perspective if the rate is TRA x-y). Accordingly, there will inevitably be shortages. Many people who had calls that they would have been willing to spend TRA x (or more) on will now be unable to rely on making that call at all, while people who had no particular urgency to use the phone may win the supply lottery and be able to make a less important call (one which they would not themselves have valued at TRA x). Therefore not only do you create shortages where none need exist, you also ensure that there is no efficient allocation of supply among those who need it the most. This result is surely contrary to your intended result.

Article 3 is superficially tempting since it aims at a good result. However, we see no reason why positive discrimination needs to be prohibited. Positive discrimination is where an individual hires an individual who is less capable than the best candidate for the position. Businesses which voluntarily pursue positive discrimination will consequently produce lower profits and thereby grow at a slower rate than competing businesses who do not pursue these fallacious policies (and thereby hire the well qualified candidates spurned by the positive discriminator). The non-discriminating business will consequently grow faster and make more profits and therefore need more staff to fill its positions and be able to pay higher wages thanks to higher profitability (or looked at another way, its staff will have a higher marginal productivity and therefore will naturally earn higher wages). As this pattern continues, the positive discriminators will ultimately fail while the non-discriminators will succeed. All this without the benevolent dictatorship of the TUP and its arbitrary decrees.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 322

no

    Total Seats: 0

    abstain
     

    Total Seats: 233


    Random fact: Particracy is completely free! If you want to support the game financially, feel free to make a small donation to the lievenswouter@gmail.com Paypal account.

    Random quote: "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 65