SENATE BILL: Economic Democratization Act (Withdrawn)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Redalgo

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator, you have 24 hours to advocate for this bill,



and to explain why everything now has a reddish tint. Does this bill damage one's vision if looked at too long?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What about new business formation? How does a company with a new innovation say, attract investors under this formulation? This sounds like a great concept for monopolized industries, but in a competitive market places, especially ones where technology is the driving force, companies rise and fall based on who has the latest invention/innovation that people end up finding they cannot live without. In those industries especially, venture capital is essential and constraining the free flow of capital, as this would lead to in my opinion, would retard those industries significantly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

All I can thing of would be some kind of exchange where people would buy in and out of the cooperatives. But that risks people being priced out of them, which is something you probably desire to avoid.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As I said, the only way this would work successfully is in a monopolized industry. More competative sectors would price these "co-operatives" out of the market and replace them with smaller entities that aren't covered, or foreign entities, because of the decline in functional and organizational efficiency, the decline in innovation and R&D, and the lack of flexibility regarding the labor pool retained.

The "devolution" from large to small business would cede several industries to foreign producers because it is only the advantages provided by economies of scale that make them economically viable, otherwise the prices for these products would be too high for people to afford them. Think how much it would cost to buy a car produced by a small business without the advanced assembly lines and automation that makes cars available to the mass public. One of the reasons why innovation in productive efficiency driven by the private sector is a positive in spite of the jobs eliminated, is because it democratizes the luxuries previously enjoyed only by the wealthy. Henry Ford didn't invent the car. Cars first appeared in the 1870's and 1880's, but they were often made one a time in a shed and only the wealthy could afford them. It was Ford's innovation of the assembly line and subsequent adoption of that by his competitors that made cars something everyone could enjoy.

Government has incentive to invest only in research that is politically popular. There is far more to technology and innovation then finding a cure for a disease or a specific device. The majority of it is driven by the desire to save money and improve efficiencies, standards that are not in the Government's interests, especially one whose focus is tunnell vision with regards to the welfare of people only. Government could not displace all the R&D that would be lost. Ceding efficiency, means ceding millions of jobs to China and other economies because they could produce stuff that we currently have a comparative advantage in (advantage that this would deprive us of) at a much lower cost and thus offer them at a lower price.

Ironically, it is my view that in pursuing the welfare of the people in this fashion, you will actually end up damaging them far more. You would have to severely restrict foreign trade to make this work and such a restriction would plunge the world into a Global Depression and cause significant economic upheavals for several years while this is introduced. Then when it comes time to recover, the forces that drive recovery (population growth and technology) are constrained by this very program. Population growth domestically is declining and we have seen what a weak economy has done to the massive influx of unskilled illegals into the country. The type of decline this would cause would end immigration to the US. Hence, why I used the phrase "tunnell vision", because the transistion alone could be disastrous for the working and middle classes.

I do think Co-operatives have a place in the economy, but so do investor owned businesses and entities. I also think that labor and management would do well to cooperate then to undermine each other, as well, because well treated workers are more productive and maintaining competiveness provides job security for more workers then the short term gain for long term pain, "get whatever you can get while you can get it out of the management" labor approach that often ends with the factory in Southern China and entire labor force being put on the unemployment line. But I think this is just too massive an alteration in the economy to successfully undertake.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is unfortunate, if only because I suspected that after a few years I'd finally figured out a third way of sorts that wasn't a complete cop-out to liberalism - which I continue to regard as inhibiting of individual liberties and self-determination while encouraging amorality in business. Given the number and severity of problems with this bill that I lack the economic savvy to solve via on-the-fly changes, I am left with no choice but to withdraw this legislation. It is for the best I quit now that my three options available are to radically amend - which I lack the know-how, time, energy, staff support, and emotional resolve to be successful in starting over from scratch to formulate a new scheme, triumph but with grave and unintended consequences for the people of Atlasia I strive to serve, or to go down rowdily backing a bad policy at a great personal loss of dignity or reputation.

So, rather than amending as originally intended, if nobody objects I am scrapping this bill entirely.

Oh come on there are ways to achieve your desired aims. You do have Social Democracy in various parts of the world, with substantial elements of what you seek to achieve successfully implemented and with a great degree of stability and prosperity. My advise would be to study some of them and find a model or a combination of models as a way to advance forward.

Lastly, you shouldn't view a piecemeal approach as a surrender as long as you maintain your long term objective of seeking to advance the welfare of the people. Oftentimes logistics and practicality demand a slow implementation to get to what you want because otherwise destabilization is an unavoidable consequence of a fast and immediate transformation.

Lastly no system is inherently corrupt, it is only the weaknesses of people that make them so and the lack of adequate means to respond or contain such deficiencies.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ya. I used to be a fan of the Nordic model but since the 1980s at least the left has failed to put forth to people an inspiring vision for what comes next in the process of gradual reform. There is plenty of time for me to continue studying and experimenting with other ideas, but it is still rather disenchanting and frustrating to fail in efforts to improve upon the flawed prescriptions of previous thinkers and - despite understanding quite well why I tend to disagree with most other people on political matters - lack a viable, detailed alternative to champion.

Aside from that, it's worth bearing in mind my personality is not well-suited for the day-to-day battles of politics. Among other things, I focus on abstractions and the big picture, associate political defeats and lost debates with personal stupidity and incompetence - which is not a standard I project onto others, am perfectionist to the extent of considering outcomes either total successes or defeats without much of anything at all in the way of middle ground, and am goal-oriented to the effect of being lost or even inconsistent on issues when I lack a clear understanding of what, exactly, needs to be achieved and how.

Chances are I'll make a second attempt at introducing legislation in this area of policy during the first month of my second term if I can get reelected. In the meanwhile I need to review a lot of standing Atlasian law before I can make any other meaningful proposals to the Senate. Depending on what happens to my other bills in queue I may opt to resign myself to serving in advisory roles where I'm relatively useful and less prone to making embarrassing mistakes.

Whatever works.

You shouldn't feel embarrassment as a result of this.

Is it is possible that that on some level a society (like the Nordic model for instance) may have reached the "most perfect" arrangement possible and that deficiencies where they exist must be dealt with on an individual basis instead of a systemic overhaul.

Basically, how do you know this "next step" exists or is even a necessary change? What is your criteria for instance? Are there some specific deficiencies in where the left has left off in say Sweden or Norway, that necessitates a next step?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 72 hours to assume sponsorship. If no one assumes sponsorship, the bill is withdrawn.


I really rather dont' care for withdrawal, it is more effective as a process for changing sponsors then getting a bill quickly off the floor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Still has some time left on that withdrawl period.


Redalgo, I would like a response to my last question if practical.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

With no Senates having offered to assume sponsorship within 72 hours, the bill is withdrawn.