Talk:Debt Ceiling Act, 654

From The Kodiak Republic Wiki

Slightly Toasted Cheesecake OP

— 06/07/2023 5:28 PM

Tabled by Immanuel von Zeppelin, MGA, CKA, as an independent member's bill. In order to save the Republic from default and prevent such a scenario in the future, it is necessary to drastically reduce the government's expenses and set the upper limit of the allowed public debt. Voting is presently set for the twenty first of June.,_654 The Kodiak Republic Wiki Debt Ceiling Act, 654 In order to save the Republic from default and prevent such a scenario in the future, it is necessary to drastically reduce the government's expenses and set the upper limit of the allowed public debt. ACTIONED on ## month ####, ## Aye, ## Nay, ## Abstain. Slightly Toasted Cheesecake OP

— 06/07/2023 5:29 PM

@Assembly Member Discussion is now opened for the Debt Ceiling Act, 654. Please keep all discussion civil and related.

Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 06/07/2023 7:41 PM I disagree with this bill because this goes against the annual budget deliberations. The discussion on the debt should be imputed in the deliberations for the annual budget and should not be legislated separately.

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 06/07/2023 8:06 PM Debt is too high, and expenditure as well, but putting a blanket limit on the ability for the state to make good on its obligations is just a shot in our own feet. As written, every bill is a bill which would bring the debt above the limit - because all ongoing obligations have the potential to do so when income is less than revenue

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 06/07/2023 10:04 PM Debt ceilings are a way of kicking the financial responsibility can down the road. Simply putting a cap on spending will only hurt everyone, as simply defaulting on loans is the worst possible outcome. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 06/08/2023 9:19 AM I welcome you, ladies and gentlemen, to this discussion. I hope that we will find a common language. I will have to express my thoughts in a few lines, so I will ask you to complicate the conversation with premature answers. When I'm done, I'll write. But about everything in order.

Let's start with the purpose of this bill. This, oddly enough, is overcoming the budget deficit. When I was thinking about this problem, I found two solutions.

The first way is to simply print more money, since the central bank is under our control. But this will lead to inflation, which can be used as an effective instrument only if two conditions are met. The first is that employment and production will increase - the economy will begin to fly into space, because it is better to invest money in production than to lose out in inflation. But according to the classics of the genre of financial losses and overproduction crises, after a period of super-prosperity comes a cruel and deep crisis. It can be prevented only by having a well-thought-out and balanced development program. We don't have a clear plan even for the next month. The second condition is the control of the financial sector. The money will go from the central bank to entrepreneurs. There is a link between them - banks and financiers (who actually "print money", but more on that another time). If a lot of money goes through them, they will try to appropriate everything for themselves. As a result, we will have high inflation, but also stagnation. The aforementioned control is not expected either in the short or medium term.

As you can see, the first option is not viable.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 06/08/2023 9:39 AM The second option is to cut costs until there is a budget surplus. We will invest the money received, and we will use the proceeds to launch refinancing of all bills, simultaneously revitalizing the economy with the money poured in. Sounds reasonable, except for one big BUT. The bills are in the queue - they already have somewhat reduced funding. In the course of the discussion, apparently, I will have to soften the opposition further. And here's the BUT: even in my original version, the debt reduction barely crossed half. Now you can imagine the scale of the impending budget crisis. It seems that the second option is also not suitable, since even radical optimization almost does not give results.

What did I choose if I said that there are only two ways to solve our puzzle. The answer will be - a related option.

Yes, it does not solve the debt problem fundamentally, it will only smooth out the corners. Yes, such a decision does not give an unambiguous answer to the question - what to cut and what to leave.

However, there is one significant advantage. We can develop skills to deal with the deficit and learn how to cope with it. We will learn at the state level to correlate our desires for a better world and the low weight of the wallet. Perhaps there will even be sketches of plans for the adoption of future bills to achieve a balanced development of Kodiak.

But now such an optimistic leap into the future seems unreasonable and fantastic. So let's get down to business: what do I suggest?

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 06/08/2023 10:04 AM My plan is this.

1) A complete reduction in unnecessary spending, a significant reduction in low-value spending and a small reduction in useful ones. To begin with, we will take off at least a few weights that are dragging us to the bottom. After that, it will become easier to pop up. Note that when choosing extra weights, you need to be guided by common sense and considerations of profitability. For example, finalizing the restoration of buildings that have been built for a long time should be thrown far to the side. Financing of roads and buses should be cut more carefully, because they are needed. But the expenses from them are huge, and the return is small. Therefore, we are faced with a choice: either it will become more difficult and more expensive to get to work and home, or they will be fired from work and creditors will take the house. It is rational to choose the second. The financing of education and medicine only needs to be slightly weakened. Spending on them is great, but the return on these investments is huge. People live longer and work better, so they bring us a lot more money. The solution of these tasks is entrusted to my upcoming (and two this) bills.

2) Cost management. As I said earlier, expenses can be not only a burden, but also an instrument. Since we can't get rid of debt, we have to learn how to use it. To do this: a) I invite you to the lobby to agree on the maximum allowable inflation. b) We need to take the financial sector under control. Its influence on our policy is small, because the central bank, and with it the printing press, is in our hands. But investments of printed money (and the actions of financial manipulators) require transparency and accountability of most monetary transactions, expansion of the regulatory powers of the antimonopoly service to the banking sector and exchanges. That's what I'm working on now.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 06/08/2023 10:30 AM 3) Small indirect solutions that help in achieving the main goal and side tasks. For example, the legislative establishment of the debt ceiling.

I will answer the criticism as follows. Let's be honest: the debt ceiling works a little only when it is installed for the first time. Then his raising is a pure formality. (OOC: The example suggests itself. USA. At first, they somehow tried to resist the national debt, but then they simply launched an inflection, canceling the binding of the dollar to gold. In our case, the debt ceiling should at least slightly weaken the strengthening of the deficit).

The accusation of the "undemocratic" nature of such a decision is ridiculous. We are giving freedom to some ephemeral people from the future, whose names we cannot even name. But material and quite tangible people are paying for it - you and me. I note that people in the future do not have subjectivity (i.e. they cannot influence our decision-making). The legislation only considers those who are right here and right now - and never otherwise. Therefore, it turns out that either you and I are deprived of our freedom for the sake of some strangers from nowhere, or we can act really democratically, vote at will and make decisions in a fair vote, without being subjected to the tyranny of someone who is not.

And the final answer to the objections. Are you sure it's prudent in the way you're doing it? I offer a well-founded and accurate solution to the problem. You're not offering anything in return. Act according to the well-known formula "criticize - offer"! What is your plan? How long will it take to implement it? What are its pros and cons? What are the details of the actions? I will be glad to hear your well-written, theoretically savvy speech.

As you might have noticed, all of the above applies to the discussion on another similar bill, so you can also answer in the discussion under it. I think I've answered all the objections, but I'll double-check.

So, questions?

Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 06/09/2023 12:55 AM You may have convinced me. However, there is one final option not included in your list - raising taxation.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 06/09/2023 5:55 AM It is possible, but for this you need to have deep knowledge about the tax system, which I do not have. But as an option, you can remember.

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 06/09/2023 7:19 PM Again, I must reiterate, the bill says Any bill, the financing of which will lead to exceeding this permitted maximum, has no legal force. The Kodiak budget is monitored by the Ministry of Revenue and Treasury.

This strictly includes every bill ever written - since all bills are authorised as ongoing expenses. So passing this bill would essentially shut down all funding (schools, hospitals, housing, law and order) in its entirety from the day it passes. Even if we assume a more liberal reading than the words written (controlled shut down at 150%) - there is no mechanism to choose which obligations are defunded or in what way. The government would be defaulting on every contract with any service provider we have. Maintenance on buildings? Contracts broken. Road funding? Contracts broken. Doctors fees agreements? Contracts broken. This bill doesn't control the debt, it automatically defaults the country and declares bankruptcy. Its legislating a "game over" screen for the entire country.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 06/09/2023 9:12 PM I'll explain how it works.

Previous expenses when exceeding the debt ceiling will not disappear anywhere, because they have already been accepted. Only the law whose funding has exceeded the threshold will be repealed.

A problematic situation will arise when the counter-legislative project that caused the limit to be exceeded cannot be identified (for example, if we do not adopt a single bill and continue to live in debt). In theory, a problematic bill can be treated as a punishment for a criminal. If it can be proved that it was he who crossed the threshold, then there is no punishment. If on the contrary, then he is found guilty.

Although I cannot but admit that this logic is far from obvious, so now I will make a clarifying correction.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 06/10/2023 8:44 AM 1.2.2 - If it is not possible to determine a specific law that has exceeded the debt ceiling, then the draft laws are not deprived of legal force. So?

Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 06/10/2023 11:08 PM "We should avoid this Bill like the plague because debt should be honored and deficit should be reined in by successive governments."

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 06/11/2023 1:53 AM "The establishment of such a society and such a state that serves all people – with the principles of justice, fair play and opportunities – does not happen by itself. Someone has to look after it. Otherwise, our government and our institutions will be captured by private interests. At the very least, we need forces to counter this...

But our society and our politics have grown out of disorder. All human institutions are fallible; all have their own weaknesses...

we are aware of the danger, we introduce regulation, we try to influence behavior, knowing that we will never completely succeed. But these reforms can correct behavior"

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 06/14/2023 10:04 AM Perhaps the discussion is not over yet. Are there any ideas about this?

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/04/2023 9:15 PM Khe-khe.

Dickie Bird (Felix) — 07/05/2023 5:18 AM I feel this will be a suitable measure to help control debt within Kodiak

Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 07/06/2023 11:49 AM Stop making debt ceiling happen Let's be responsible fiscal people when doing the budget

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/07/2023 8:10 AM As I said earlier, I have no illusions about the effectiveness of the debt ceiling. Given our parliamentary structure, raising the ceiling will not take much time. But it is a good reminder that you can't ignore.

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 07/07/2023 8:26 AM You say "Given our parliamentary structure, raising the ceiling will not take much time", but given the time a bill spends in the queue could be two weeks, depending on load, no, I disagree entirely. This government could cease to operate for 6 months because of this bill. That is not a positive outcome

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/07/2023 8:55 AM Why is that? If the costs of bills in the queue do not fit within the permissible limits, then, if this law is adopted, they are automatically skipped before the law on raising the debt ceiling.

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 07/07/2023 9:00 AM That assumes that the majority of bills in the queue have budgetary additions Not all do Some are budgetary reductions, some are laws that require no budget. It is a mistake, a grave mistake, to assume that every law should be ignored if it does not fit within some arbitrary limit

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/07/2023 9:07 AM I did not say that all bills in the queue will be rejected, but only with budget additions. At least that's what I wanted to say, not anything else. Whether I managed to do it is up to the members of the Assembly to decide.

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 07/07/2023 9:18 AM That's what I'm trying to say. If there are bills in the queue, re-doing the debt ceiling could take weeks, weeks that we dont have

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/07/2023 9:27 AM I don't think that several bills can be so important as not to wait for a couple of rare bills without expenses. By the time we get to the debt ceiling, I hope to implement an anti-crisis package of measures. Here is a brief outline: Google Docs Anti-crisis package of measures Anti-crisis package of measures Investment policy of the Ministry of Revenue and Treasury Elimination of non-essential expenses, such as non-productive restoration of buildings, excessive urban planning, financing of obsolete industries. Reorientation of the main expenditures of the state from e... Image

Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 07/18/2023 7:47 PM Why are you taking a tight monetary policy lol

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/18/2023 9:12 PM Because there is no other way out of stagflation. (Unless you are the USA, which can "just" print more money).

Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 07/19/2023 9:15 PM I might you cannot subsidize and implement tight monetary policy We can just cut welfare, raise interest rates and pay off debt in the interim

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/19/2023 11:38 PM ... cut welfare to kill the remnants of the workforce? Treat social security expenses as depreciation deductions, and not a waste of funds.

Restructuring the economy and paying off the debt prematurely looks like an impossible task. From the examples I know, inflation is first lowered (and then the state debt is repaid), and then the economy is restructured. I want to try to solve these two problems at the same time. And for this we need guarantees that the Minister of treasure and Commerce (concurrently the head of the central bank) will not interfere with the reforms.

To do this, we need a strict monetary policy, which is also formalized by law.

Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 07/22/2023 6:11 PM While inflation is ok for debt because it makes debt worthless

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 07/22/2023 6:27 PM That's not how debt works

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/23/2023 10:26 PM In fact, inflation is the best tool for debt repayment. But it does not work in times of crisis, like all such Keynesian methods. We need to act differently. In addition, it should be borne in mind that inflation can be increased only to reduce unemployment and exactly as long as unemployment does not become near zero. Otherwise, you will be left without large investments, since it will be impractical to save a large amount of money for these purposes.

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 07/23/2023 10:38 PM None of that has anything to do with a conversation about a debt ceiling. I am absolutely against any legislation which seeks to amend legislation without authorisation. There still remains no effective way to determine what programs are to be suddenly and terribly destroyed, how they are reinstated, if they are instated. All this bill does is say "Any bill, the financing of which will lead to exceeding this permitted maximum, has no legal force"

that is every bill forever, since all bills are funded in perpetuity, and we have no mechanism of psychic ability to know if in future there will be enough revenue to cover expenses or not. I am firmly against this bill

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/23/2023 11:28 PM It seems to me that we are going on the second, if not the third, circle. The prosecution and the defense cannot give each other anything new. To anyone who wants to refresh the arguments in their memory, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the entire discussion from the very beginning.

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 07/27/2023 8:43 PM Unless the members would like to ask for a extension, if their is no further debate or objections this proposal will be moved for a vote in 24 hours.

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 07/27/2023 8:48 PM There's certainly some question as to the legality of a bill that would nullify other bills without consultation.

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 07/27/2023 8:51 PM You could seek clarification from the @Chief Justice But I am unsure he could issue a binding ruling unless the bill were passed. I would prefer it be denied and render the question moot

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 07/27/2023 8:53 PM Are the honorable members objecting to the vote and would their for like a extension? Or shall I still commence with the vote?

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 07/27/2023 8:59 PM I don't think anyone is challenging your 24 hour warning

Eðward Staples 🐝 (Mengtian) — 07/27/2023 9:04 PM Thanks for pointing this out.

It does look to me that this bill is more about "rules of order" and is a procedural matter perhaps more appropriate for a constitutional amendment than a law. Otherwise, the language of something having "no legal force" sounds like something that should come from my bench rather than the legislature.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/28/2023 12:31 AM It's hard to argue with @Chief Justice . I will make the appropriate changes.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/28/2023 6:23 AM Voila. It couldn't be more minimalistic.

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 07/28/2023 6:26 AM Mr. @Chief Justice

Eðward Staples 🐝 (Mengtian) — 07/28/2023 7:57 AM Interesting 😎

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/28/2023 7:58 AM I think this act is very informative)

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 07/28/2023 8:04 AM Alright... so, the bill states "The maximum allowed amount of debt of the Kodiak Republic is 150% of its GDP" and yet it has no way to be enforced. I do honestly think that there is no purpose to this bill. Practically, it is impossible to enforce, impossible to justify, and impossible to understand. I honestly petition for this bill to be removed from consideration. It provides no benefit; it, in fact, harms our nation.

W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 07/28/2023 8:05 AM It would probably be more expedient at this point to request a final vote. since working through a process to remove it would take more time than just voting on it

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 07/28/2023 8:06 AM A simple statement from the author would not suffice to remove the bill from the floor? That is what I petition the author to do. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 07/28/2023 8:07 AM I am not convinced that after two years of work on the bill the author is of the mind to remove it willingly

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 07/28/2023 8:07 AM I believe Mr. von Zeppelin is reasonable, but you may be right.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/28/2023 8:08 AM You want a lot) I think your massage it was a joke.

Braughn F. G. Kryos — 07/28/2023 8:08 AM I assure the minister that it was not. The constitutionality of a debt ceiling as a concept is questionable, at best. Written previously, it was not acceptable. Written as it is, it is unenforcable.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/28/2023 8:11 AM My suggestion is this: this bill has been in the queue for too long. It's time to decide either for him or against. It is difficult to discuss one article, so let each side write its arguments within the framework of one message, and let's finish with this and move on to more useful things.

von Zeppelin [CKA] — 07/28/2023 8:12 AM @Chief Justice?

EasyPoll BOT

— 07/28/2023 9:17 PM

Question Do you approve of the Debt Ceiling Act, 654

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [5 • 24%] 🇧 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░ [15 • 71%] 🇨 ░░░░░░░░░░ [1 • 5%] 21 users voted


alarm_clock: Poll already ended (2 days ago)
spy: Anonymous Poll
one: allowed choice
lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: a1e5b5b4

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 07/28/2023 9:18 PM @Assembly Member voteing is now open for the Debt Ceiling Act, 654 and will be open for 3 days

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 07/31/2023 8:34 AM @Assembly Member there are only 13 hours left in this poll make sure to vote if you haven’t already

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — Yesterday at 10:17 PM @Assembly Member this poll has ended it has been rejected by a margin of 5 for 15 against and 1 abstaining

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.