2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Law'd)

[Franzl]

Well I support the principle of a stimulus package.

I'm willing to accept Sections 1, 4 and 5 without any alterations, as I think all the items mentioned are sensible points that will help Atlasia.

My two main problems are:

a.) the nationalization of the automobile industry. First of all, I don't think any automaker should be taken over by the government, but if such a step is taken, then it certainly shouldn't include companies like Ford that appear to be capable of surviving on their own.

However nationalizing only GM would create several problems concerning competition. I don't think companies that are able to survive on their own should be punished by being forced to compete against a government own automobile manufacturer. And I really don't think it's good precedent to simply take over a company that actually deserves to go bankrupt. I don't see any good reason to "bailout" GM. I think the supply on the market is in general too high, and that financially sound carmakers could profit from GM folding. It seems foolish to me to be investing in a business that the market has no reason to support. I don't believe in being "too big to fail".

My other problem is the "Buy Atlasian" provision. Do we really want to start with these protectionist measures? Do you think countries with which we have free trade would like the idea of the Atlasian government requiring that Atlasian companies be used for infrastructure projects? What happens when they enact similar requirements in their own stimulus bills and Atlasian companies lose money because they can't offer their products and services abroad? Protectionism just seems to me to be a bad idea...the work should be done by the company that offers the best work at the best price, regardless of where that company is located. Now, I know that's not necessarily the purpose of a "stimulus bill", if you believe that it should only help Atlasian companies...but that's my position on trade, and I don't believe that protectionism is ultimately beneficial to anybody, even if it does provide relief in the short run to a couple of companies.

[Franzl]

Well but why? Our own companies will be put at just as big of a disadvantage when/if other countries enact their own stimulus packages?

Shouldn't the work be done by the company that offers the best quality and price? Why can't we force Atlasian companies to actually compete instead of just relying on friendly government policy?

[Franzl]

I still don't understand why Atlasian companies wouldn't able to compete for contracts, especially if they offer a better product. If they're unable to compete for these stimulus projects...my question is: What hope do they have of surviving in the future?

Is the government supposed to provide support indefinitely?


edit: I understand you're not arguing that we should provide indefinite support....but I'm just wondering why a company that needs to be competitive in order to survive in the future shouldn't be able to gain contracts on their own?

[Franzl]

I shall be voting for NCYankee's amendment, but I have no problem accepting Purple State's compromise in the event that the first one fails.

[Franzl]

Aye

[Franzl]

Aye. I support this and the proposed increases in infrastructure spending.

Sorry I haven´t been around to debate these items...but I´ll be back home on Friday evening.

[Franzl]

I'll vote for Fritz's amendment, of course.

NCYankee outlined good proposals for aiding the auto industry when debate on this stimulus package first began, and I think we should approach the problem from that direction.

[Franzl]

I'd suggest lowering corporate taxation on the auto industry by a certain amount...but also providing further direct incentives and subsidies for research and development of better, fuel efficient cars to enable Atlasia's car makers to be able to compete with foreign car companies.

You probably won't be happy with that.... But I don't support taking over the auto industry....and I don't think poor business decisions should be rewarded by providing endless help to companies that aren't economically viable.

The Atlasian auto industry needs to become more competitive, plain and simple, but at the same time, I'd be terribly uncomfortable with the government making business decisions and damaging competition.

[Franzl]

Aye

[Franzl]

How would these investments in technology look, exactly? Would they be provided in the form of direct government subsidies?

My other question is about the emergency loans or direct aid...would the fact that they certainly exist prevent car makers from truly enacting appropriate reforms?

Obviously there would be terrible short term effects if any main automaker were to be liquidated, and that is something that nobody would like to see happen.


The temporary corporate tax reductions are a very good idea...Question: Would they apply only to the Big 3 Atlasian automakers, or to every automaker?

[Franzl]

How would these investments in technology look, exactly? Would they be provided in the form of direct government subsidies?

My other question is about the emergency loans or direct aid...would the fact that they certainly exist prevent car makers from truly enacting appropriate reforms?

Obviously there would be terrible short term effects if any main automaker were to be liquidated, and that is something that nobody would like to see happen.


The temporary corporate tax reductions are a very good idea...Question: Would they apply only to the Big 3 Atlasian automakers, or to every automaker?

1. The Investment in technology would consist first and foremost with boosting the overall investment in R&D for Energy and Transportation tech. In RL its currently at 4 Billion annually. The wonderful Mitt Romney proposed boasting it to $20 billion a year, I would prefer $25 Billion or more annually. I am not exactly sure how the our R&D program works but I beleive subsidies are a part of it. 

2. We will have to deal with that problem either by something like saying you will only get aid once or something like that. I am open to whatever you think is appropriate to prevent that from happening

3. Again, on the tax deductions, something I hadn't thought about yet but am currently working on that. I would appreciate any suggestions you have on that as well.

I am good at crafting overal strategies, and plans but when it comes down to micro details I am not as good.

Yeah that's my problem as well....finding exact details and wording for bills

I'll see what I can do. Allowing the emergency funding once and only once is good proposal. I would consider it only fair to provide the corporate tax cuts to the entire industry...it's still a good way to keep Atlasian makers from folding, I think.

Ultimately, of course, the funding for research is the best way of getting the Atlasian car industry competitive again...and that should certainly be our long-term strategy.

[Franzl]

Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

[Franzl]

Section 3 is amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The automakers should go through natural bankruptcy and restructuring processes without excessive government intervention. I also agree with NCYankee that passing meaningful healthcare reform will also provide a great deal of aid to automakers that are struggling with funding union wages and benefits.

[Franzl]

I'll agree to raising the amount to $10 billion, as proposed by Marokai.....but I'm not open to any form of nationalization.

[Franzl]

Perhaps if we get to a point where all Atlasian automakers are likely to be liquated....but to be perfectly honest, I don't think it should be our responsibility to make sure every one survives, that's not how the market is supposed to work. I'm not convinced that it would even be a terrible thing for total supply on the American auto market to go down a bit....

[Franzl]

My only problem with letting carmakers fail in the current economic environment is that weakness during such a major recession does not necessarily indicate general weakness. Few could have predicted the need to weather such a storm and the crisis wasn't started in the auto companies. People who may want cars are scared or can't get a loan to buy a car simply because of the troubles in the loan markets. So the current demand for cars does not reflect what it would be if people could get proper funds. They don't deserve to fail in such a climate.

Seems pretty clear actually....Ford made good economic decisions, and is now able to sell products that are up to international standards, and GM made poor economic decisions, clinging for too long to gas guzzling cars (like the Hummer).

I think GM clearly does deserve to fail in such a climate.

[Franzl]

Could someone maybe summarize really shortly what has been going on here....? If it's not too much trouble....This thread is damn long....

I don't need precise details...

[Franzl]

OK, thanks PS.

What happened to the auto industry?

[Franzl]

OK, thanks PS.

What happened to the auto industry?

Increased the "emergency loans" as they were pitifully low.

So I take it the nationalization is completely out of the picture?

[Franzl]

OK, thanks PS.

What happened to the auto industry?

Increased the "emergency loans" as they were pitifully low.

So I take it the nationalization is completely out of the picture?

It is indeed.

Alright, thanks!

[Franzl]

Aye ftr